Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 107

Amendment request: Magioladitis 2 (December 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Magioladitis at 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2


 * 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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis_2
 * is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner) bit not for HotCat, on the English Wikipedia.

Statement by Magioladitis
HotCat is a JavaScript program that helps registered users easily remove, change, and add categories to Wikipedia pages. It has a suggestions list that will propose existing categories for auto-completion. It can be activated via Preferences so no reason to prohibit this one.

Beyond My Ken, I think the "similar tools" is a very vague definition. HotCat can be used to add/remove categories and change sortkeys. Since this does not make any visual change I would like to avoid people using the ArbCom "similar tools" defintion to complain that I use automated tools. HotCat is a semi-automated tool. Some may claim that Visual Editor (VE) is also a semi-auomated tool since using VE I won't directly edit the wikicode but I think the community agrees that using VE to edit a page is accepted and does not require any extra permision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw, my question is actually about HotCat. If you think, for saving time, that the clarification can be more general to include more tools please do.

Xausflux said that "don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though". I don't plan to but since all the discussions we had were, from my part, mainly about multiple editors editing habbits and how to form a strategy for that in the future, I would like to comment on that. I don't recall any restriction to my editing rate. Recall that from the last case the editing rate was never said to be an issue. Moreover, adding categories (using HotCat or any other tools) is a commonly accepted behaviour.

Last thing: It's true that HotCat does not allow multiple page editing so it won't affect my edit rate in that manner. It just makes life easier for editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
The full text of the sanction involved is below.


 * AWB prohibition
 * 3) is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Wikipedia. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Wikipedia. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.


 * Passed 12 to 0 at 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to ask Magioladitis what kinds of edits he envisions making using HotCat, and why not being allowed to use HotCat at present is inhibiting his current editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
Hello, I was slightly involved with this issue previously, and would like to note that while prior use of tools such as AWB provided the means for contentious editing, the method of placing any individual edit was never a cause of concern for me. What I did see as an issue was the effects from the way these tools were used, when used in a rapid and continuous manner. That being said, I'm in general support that using tools to help improve the project can be beneficial and support relaxing this restriction. I would also caution that should this lead to a return to high-speed, repetitive editing - especially of a cosmetic nature - it is likely to end right back in the tedious dispute resolution systems. So for HotCat - sure, go make things better - don't start making hundreds of edits an hour with it though. — xaosflux  Talk 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I don't think any motion is needed here, just a clarification that HotCat is not AWB-like. It most definitely is not. It doesn't pull up lists of pages, cannot be used to make cosmetic-only changes, and doesn't do any type of general fixes. It only adds categories as directed by the editor. Magioladitis is able to use it under his current restrictions, as far as I'm concerned. I do applaud him for coming here to seek clarification on that point before he gets started, though. That's a rather major departure from previous behaviors that led to the sanctions (ask for forgiveness, not permission). If that new trend continues, I would probably support starting to cautiously reduce the restrictions in the near future. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:28, 20 December 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.

Magioladitis 2: Clerk notes

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



Magioladitis 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm inclined to support the request. using Hotcat seems distinct enough from the original problems.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)`
 * I would have no issue with Magioladitis using Hotcat. It might just be in my head, but Hotcat works on a single page, while AWB works over multiple pages, becoming bot-like. I should remind Magioladitis that there is a "multiple changes" button on Hotcat, so you can make all the changes you need to and then click save all. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Worm's mention of the multiple changes button is a good reminder. Doug Weller  talk 11:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with the use of HotCat. I would be fine with this, as it does avoid the issues that led to the current restrictions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think HotCats functions differently enough from AWB and other similar tools that Magioladitis should be able to use HotCats without violating his restrictions. Mkdw  talk 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is your request about actually using HotCats or are you using HotCats as an example of a semi-automated tool with the intent to request to use other semi-automated tools? If you want to use HotCats as originally requested, you have your answer and this can be closed. Mkdw  talk 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Per Worm. Katietalk 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, I don't see any problem with this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add to the consensus, except to please use the tool cautiously and make sure that it is giving correct results. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Lightbreather (January 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)


 * 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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)
 * Remove Iban sanction.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago []. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a | benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry, calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out repeatedly confront what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away even in situations I was not involved directly. I understand these actions helped make the problem worse. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports (let me be clear that would be an extra-ordinary thing and would have to be in my face, on my page otherwise with little to no edit overlap I doubt I'd ever come into contact with that user again). I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently.

@User:GRuban it would prohibit me from a fresh start and yes it can be used as a weapon too against me. I am not looking for a fresh start, my record is what it is warts and all, but if ever I should want one it would be sockpuppetry if I did and it would at least help rehabilitate my record a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:SilkTork, a few small thoughts. Lightbreather, I believe, would avoid me like the plague and she most likely has strong feelings towards anyone involved in that scenario (justifiably). Much of that would be completely reasonable due to the nature of the off wiki harrassment she received and that the anonymous nature of editing could leave her and others to speculate who was involved and how. I think one thing everyone can agree about is there was a lot of off wiki conversations about this situation. Everyone lost, every single editor and my voluntary nature to abstain is because I have waded into the gender wars and I lost badly, the cost of part of my reputation is not something I wish to go through again. People start losing their minds, same thing with the various AN, ANI, Jimbo page etc. It is my intention to avoid places like this just to avoid the stress and ensuing bullshit. My area that I am versed in somewhat is new articles patrol, deletions, recent changes and short stub creations. If I stay in those places it is much more rewarding and usually more cut and dry. My involvement with this case started on an ANI thread. The reason why I disagree with your assertion is because I actually notified large portions of that original discussion as well see []. One suggestion I could make is adopting a motion for discretionary sanctions for this case. This would allow administrators the power to use limited discretionary sanctions and provide a snap back for anyone involved including myself. It is my understanding to remove discretionary sanctions the sanctioning admin must vacate or they must be appealed to the committee and this was a little more in line with the proposed decision that arbcom be the final decision there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Banedon, i don't think the answer is nothing. I want community recognition not only that I have acknowledged my part in this but I also want to make it clear that I learned something invaluable in the process. If there is one thing I can say positive about this situation is that it did make me look at things a little more critically in terms of gender, things I had not been cognizant before. If maintaining the status quo is maintaining a cloud over my editing I'm not sure how long I should remain under that cloud and at what point I can reasonably ask for it to be lifted. I do recall an offer of mentorship for LB prior to the site ban but a portion of that decision was a gun control restriction which ultimately was a deal breaker for her. My own interests are as I laid out to SilkTork and if I was somehow sidelined from them I would find it difficult to want to come back too. I don't recall precisely the issues with her editws that lead to that, gun control is not an area I am versed in so I couldn't say if it was bad or not. You'd have to read the arbcom case and make your own educated decision. The question I asked myself prior to filing this is how long should I wait? I'm not sure there is a answer to that. I've had a beer or two so apologies if I ramnled. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban
So we've got two possibilities: (1) Lightbreather stays away, so removing this sanction does nothing. (2) Lightbreather returns, at which point we have to ask why we removed this sanction without even asking her opinion.

Why don't we leave this up, and should L return, ask her how she feels about it? --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses, folks. RFA-wise, honestly, is there that much difference in terms of black mark from "I have an IBan but the person whom it is with isn't here any more" to "I had an IBan, but it was vacated because the person whom it was with isn't here any more"? In either case the important part is "yes, I messed up, but I understand why, and I'm not doing it any more" - and frankly, sometimes that's even better than "I've never messed up", shows humanity. But I like TParis's suggestion. Suggestions; both of them, actually. I'd be happy if we were to give both HiaB and Lb a second chance, if they understood what the issues were; it has been a while. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bellezzasolo
I think most editors consider an IBAN as a mark against another editor's record. If Hell in a Bucket went for an RfA, this would come up as a significant black mark, and I dare say there are other venues that I can't think of. If both editors are active, then the ban can be appealed, and, if accepted, this will show up on relevant logs. Furthermore, sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This IBAN is serving no further purpose. Admittedly, repealing it serves no effective purpose, but it may serve a purpose in the future. I don't see any reason to prevent editors from appealing IBANs when the other party has behaved in such a problematic manner that they've been sitebanned. All this means is that editors who are more likely to have been goaded into a conflict have no way to "get their record expunged". &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  16:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TParis
I am still in contact with Lightbreather. If Arbcom is requesting a statement from her, I could ask. It might also be a good time to review her site ban as well and possible vacate it. It's been years since this case, both editors have had time away.--v/r - TP 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
Vacate the iban. Both parties have atrocious block logs (although most of Hell's blocks are quite old), and both of them violated the ban at least once, but the request here is eminently reasonable and seems to reflect some real introspection into why this was needed and why their own behavior was not acceptable. (I would also say that as far as I can recall I've never seen such a request where an opinion from a banned user was solicited, and whether Lightbreather's ban remains in place is an entirely seperate issue and her opinion on this is not necessary to come to a decision) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Euryalus
As a drafter of the Lightbreather case, support the proposal to vacate this iban - was necessary at the time and is redundant now. Separately, seems reasonable to review Lightbreather's siteban if it turns out that they're interested in coming back. But understandable if they have better things to do given the deeply unpleasant offwiki harassment they experienced at the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
No particular thoughts for or against the request, which is one that I could equally propose in relation to an old IBAN that lies against me where the other party has also gone. However, regarding the point that makes, I think Lightbreather is still pursuing the same agenda off-wiki as got her into trouble on-wiki, so suggesting that her situation be revisited is probably not going to be helpful. Unless, of course, the blogs, social media etc I am thinking off are not in fact her but some sort of impersonator. I'm not linking to them so please don't ask. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Tend to agree with Euryalus and the requester. In more detail, an extant I-ban implies there is an ongoing problem to prevent, but there is not. WP:NOT and all that. If a restriction no longer serves a purpose it should be vacated, since we all know these things have a Scarlet Letter effect.

I also agree with TParis's suggestion that LB should be asked directly to comment, and that whether restrictions against that editor need to be retained at this stage at all is worth examining. Remedies are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If LB were to return and re-engage in the same disruptive behaviors, then another site-ban would likely ensue on the double, so this seems very low-risk. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
The Lightbreather fiasco probably marks the nadir of the recent Arbitration Committee regimes, where a committee majority actually voted at one point to direct women sexually harassed over their Wikipedia editing not to fight back. One of the reasons given for site-banning Lightbreather was that she made off-wiki attempts to confirm the identity of the person who was engaging in sexually harassing her off-wiki. She suspected a Wikipedia editor seh had an ongoing dispute with and was eventually proved correct. As I recall, some of the information off-wiki included a picture of the harasser he had posted himself to Wikipedia (to compare to a picture of himself the harasser had posted to his userpage on the sexsite involved in his off-wiki harassment). Lightbreather acted with considerable restraint: The harasser had posted his real-world identity to Wikipedia, and it was easy to track down information about his family, his job, and his membership in an organization quite important to him. She could easily have massively disrupted his personal life. She didn't. There appears yo be no evidence she did more than act to stop the harassment.

I'd also note that the harasser made efforts to turn up real-world identifying information about me, and implicitly tried to enlist other users to help, made off-wiki communications prompting a porn performer to make legal threats against me, then posted links to the threats on Wikipedia, and made palpably dishonest and abusive comments about me and other users, yet nothing was done to him for such behaviour -- until he went far beyond the pale in his attacks on Lightbreather. Even now, although he's been been WMF-banned, his confirmed identity as Lightbreather's principal harasser hasn't been reported here.

ArbComm ought to vacate the entire Lightbreather decision, except for the sanctions against Lightbreather's offwiki harassers, and institutionally apologize both to Lightbreather and to the community for its misguided actions. Removing a "cloud" from users tainted by aa horrifically flawed a decision as this should not be so selectively as to further demean the editor most unfairly treated by it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon
As long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, this request seems pointless to me. I'd ask Hell in a Bucket this question: as long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, what is there to gain from this interaction ban revoked, or what is lost by having this interaction ban in place? If the answer is "nothing", why change the status quo? We can worry about this if and when Lightbreather is unbanned; until then this might as well stay in place. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand I'm afraid. If you're after forgiveness, that's not something the community can decide as a whole; it must come down to each individual person. For example in this case, the six editors who've signed that message of support for Ryulong are not going to view his editing as under a cloud, even though Arbcom sanctions remain in place. If you want to publicly acknowledge your role in this, you could e.g. make a statement on your user page. I still don't see the point of this request unless Lightbreather is unbanned, and again, we can worry about lifting the interaction ban if and when that happens. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
Semantic note only. To the arbitrators, the best word to use for “the sanction was good at the time but we’re ending it now” is probably “terminated.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (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.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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


 * I've cleaned up some formatting issues with this request --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd like to hear from other community members, but generally I'm minded to accept this request. Self reflection is difficult but it is the best way to move forward and this comment by Hell in a Bucket ticks all the boxes that I'd like to see in this sort of appeal. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) I was thinking the same as WTT here. Another factor is the siteban itself on Lightbreather. Unless that was overturned, there wouldn't be any interaction with Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather. The fact they recognize the issue is admirable, and as the user in question is gone, the need for an IBAN doesn't seem as prominent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add, if LB wished to come back, that discussion needs to be held separate from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am fine with vacating the restriction.  AGK  &#9632;  17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per colleagues, I would prefer to solely deal with HiaB's restriction. If Lightbreather wished to appeal their sanction (there is no indication that is the case), I'd like to deal with that separately.   AGK  &#9632;  11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable to me. I don't think we need to bother Lightbreather by dragging her back into an issue she can't respond to on equal footing; we can sort that out if and when Lightbreather appeals her own sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable request: the sanction is now redundant so there's no need to keep Hell in a Bucket under a cloud. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Worm. Good to see. Katietalk 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect Hell in a Bucket's reflection on what occurred, and their own role in it. My qualms here are that this was a community i-ban that ArbCom took over  to maintain some control of the situation if Lightbreather returned. So there are two aspects of this that I feel need consideration.
 * 1) If we are thinking that this i-ban is no longer relevant, then we should create a motion to return all the Lightbreather community i-bans to the community. Either the bans are relevant to ArbCom or they are not, and if they are not, then the community should take back control and decide what to do with them. My feeling on that is the original reason for ArbCom taking over the i-bans is still in play - if Lightbreather does return, it is useful to have the restrictions in place to limit the potential for disruption to the project and the community. The time to decide if the restrictions should be lifted is after Lightbreather has returned, not before.
 * 2) If we are thinking that this particular i-ban is different to the others because Hell in a Bucket has written to us showing understanding of what has occurred, then we need to consider the terms of the lifting of the i-ban. The wording is such that Hell in a Bucket appears to want the two-way ban lifted, but wishes to impose restrictions on himself which makes lifting the i-ban symbolic rather than actual. If we are to keep the i-ban within ArbCom, and accede to Hell in a Bucket's request, then it might be better to not lift the i-ban, but to convert it into a one-way ban (Lightbreather restricted from interacting with Hell in a Bucket) in order to minimise potential problems if Lightbreather does return.
 * My feeling on this, after reflection, is that we don't know if Lightbreather will return, and until she does there is no meaningful restriction in place. But if she does return, then it might be useful to keep all ArbCom restrictions in place, and remove them then, as appropriate - returning the i-bans to the community rather than lifting them. If what Hell in a Bucket wants is a symbolic lifting of the i-ban, in a sense a public acknowledgement that he has moved on, then we can note that, so the community can see and respect his new understanding, yet keep the restrictions appropriately in place. SilkTork (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts Hell in a Bucket. My hesitations are not to do with your side of things - you have shown exactly the sort of understanding of your behaviour that the community, admins, and ArbCom like to see, and which tends to result in the lifting of any sanctions. Indeed, the thoughts expressed by the Committee here reflect that. My qualms are to do with a) ArbCom's role in this, and b) the impact on the restrictions put in place by ArbCom for if Lightbreather returns. If you were asking for any individual sanctions on yourself to be lifted that were within ArbCom's remit to lift, there would be no hesitation at all. And because the i-ban actually does not impact you at all because the other party is not here to interact with, I'm hesitant to simply say yes without thinking about the implications of this. The realistic way the i-ban impacts you is in the sense that it prevents you being clearly understood as an "editor in good standing", which is why I felt a notice saying you were cleared of the negative connotation of the ban might be considered.
 * ArbCom's role in your i-ban (and that of the others) was simply to take over existing community bans to ensure a controlled return to Wikipedia if Lightbreather returned. As far as I can see, what has changed in that regard is a belief that Lightbreather will not return, and a space of time. If the space of time, along with people's assertions, is considered enough to indicate that Lightbreather will not return, then ALL the i-bans that ArbCom took over can be returned to the community; or, if the Committee felt bold enough, lifted. Personally I would prefer the community to lift community restrictions - I would like to see ArbCom reduce its authority as much as possible, and where the community can deal with matters then the community should. So that's my thinking on that. It's not denying your appeal, but returning it to the proper place.
 * The other aspect is the impact that lifting your i-ban with Lightbreather would have on Lightbreather should she return. It was considered at the time to be significant enough for ArbCom to take over the i-ban. If it is felt that Lightbreather will not return, then we are back at ArbCom returning all the i-bans to the community; but if it is felt that she might return, then giving some pause to reflect on the implications of that would useful. The implications are: if Lightbreather is to be accepted back into the community it would be after an appeal similar to yours in which she showed enough understanding of her behaviour to indicate that such i-bans wouldn't be needed. So, my preference in all this would be to return all the i-bans to the community on the understanding that enough time has passed for none of the i-bans to be appropriate to continue to be under ArbCom control. SilkTork (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support lifting the two-way IBAN per Euryalus and others. This would effectively remove it for Lightbreather as well and should she decide to return to editing, the issue can be raised then and there, and should it become a problem, the community has the ability to deal with it. ArbCom as a last resort. Mkdw  talk 21:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per OR, I'm ok with vacating this restriction. I agree there's no need to drag LB into it when she's still site-banned - a bit like rubbing salt in the wound, in my opinion. I'm open to revisiting the need for the IBAN in the future if LB successfully appeals and if it's felt to be necessary again at that point, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think lifting this IBAN is reasonable. I also agree that any revisitation of Lightbreather's sanctions should be done separately, and only if we have some indication from Lightbreather that they wish to return. I don't agree with SilkTork that this should be returned to the community for consideration—partly because we took over the sanction, and partly because HiaB already took this to the community and was redirected here. I'd rather not punt him right back to the community after several days of deliberation here (with some input from the community already). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting on this because I don't currently have the time to get stuck in and figure out what's going on, but do you have any objection with using "rescinded" instead of "vacated"? "Vacated" has a flavor of the original sanction being overturned as invalid or otherwise annulled (e.g. vacated judgement) rather than the sanction being lifted as simply no longer needed. I'm probably nitpicking, but "rescinded" has a more neutral connotation, I think. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Katietalk 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Motion

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) I don't feel further language is necessary, but as always, feel free to make it more elegant. Katietalk 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) * Changed 'vacated' to 'rescinded' per Rob's suggestion. Elegance, y'all. ;-) Katietalk 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Sounds good to me. Indifferent to whether the verb is vacated, rescinded, terminated, lifted, removed, crumpled up and tossed in the bin, etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the removal, unconcerned about the specific word used. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) I do support the removal. Mildly concerned that the motion states that it was enacted in the case - it was already in place prior to the case. If someone wants to make a change regarding that, I'd support it, but my primary opinion is that the interaction ban should be removed and therefore I support the motion as it stands. <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>) 09:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) For all my quibbles I do support this. I'd like us to also consider returning the other i-bans to the community; given that we feel this one is no longer relevant, that should also apply to the others. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Note: I have replaced "enacted" with "taken over". SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 15:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) This works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) <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  03:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  AGK  &#9632;  17:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (January 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Special:Diff/850648652


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.


 * 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


 * Special:Diff/876179926
 * Special:Diff/876180033


 * Information about amendment request
 * The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.
 * Remove page creation and page move restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately  hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP) and Red Meat.
 * (reply to AGK) Yes I frequently make move requests to move an article and DAB, usually this involves moving "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" and "Foo" to "Foo, Location" (example). Moves to move to "Foo (city)" are less common. I don't understand what the point about my question of the existence of a place is, my existing restrictions don't relate to that. Obviously some of the RMs have involved disputes since that's the main purpose of RM (as noted above) If I was making RM proposals that were always being closed as clear consensus to move, then that would be a sign that I should be boldly making those moves myself, not using RM. In response to the last comment, I would quite happily have a 1RR or 0RR with page moves, although I have never edit warred over moves anyway and wouldn't have a problem with such restrictions on any edits, but I don't have restrictions elsewhere so that's unnecessary anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to AGK) If I am questioning the existence of a place then isn't that a good sign, people have often complained about the lack of sources and notability in my articles. Most of the time the DAB page is at the base name, see WP:DABNAME. Talk:Rothesay is an example of a move the other way round and the Noss move is moving to a different name (in this case calling is "Isle of Noss" rather than "Noss") The usual rule of WP:BRD would apply to moves I make, if a move is objected to and there is no agreement with me and the other person, then I revert the move and start a formal WP:RM discussion.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia. I removed the PROD with the reason that it should be merged. A prod can be removed by anyone, even without explanation, but I always either explain or improve the article if removing. It is not a case of you are prohibited from removing unless you immediately resolve the issues (see WP:DEPROD). You're reason "Not remotely notable enough for a standalone article and full of indiscriminate miscellany. The short paragraph at University of the West of England, Bristol is more than sufficient." in its self indicates it should be merged and not deleted. Since the content was already covered at the proposed target then converting it to a redirect (to target the short paragraph) would have been entirely appropriate. I then made an !vote to merge and a reply to the fact that I had removed the PROD, hardly stonewalling. In any case the article couldn't have been deleted via PROD anyway since it was unanimously kept at Articles for deletion/UWE Students' Union, even though that was a long time ago (2007). Per WP:BEFOREC4 merging as suggested would have been better since it had been around for more than a dozen years, its quite likely that it would break external links, linking to it, which a redirect would take care of. If you'd asked me on my talk page to list it at proposed merges or help with the merge, I would have done so, I understand that I maybe didn't make it entirely clear what I was doing but I think opposing to removing the restrictions is inappropriate. I shows that I understand that there are alternatives to deletion (and creating standalone articles).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was saying that the title should be redirected (instead of deleted completely), thus merged, the opposite of a spinnoff. I don't know enough about the notability guidelines in that area to say if the articles was notable enough to have a standalone article, but I do know that assuming it isn't appropriate to have a separate article it should be merged, not deleted. Also linked from the 2007 AFD is Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union which was closed as merge.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was not intending on keeping it as a separate article, just that it should be merged assuming its not notable. Usually WP:Notability is only about standalone articles, not topics that are merged into another. In other words I was saying that while I don't object to Swarm's point that there shouldn't be an article, I do object to deletion (completely), since merging/redirection is available/reasonable in this case. We would probably only delete if the parent article (University of the West of England, Bristol) shouldn't contain the content per WP:V/WP:NOT. As long as content on "The Students' Union at UWE" exists at University of the West of England, Bristol its a valid merge candidate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Beyond My Ken/Swarm) Yes I hadn't made a distinction between "merge" and "redirect", but as pointed out if the appropriate content is already covered in the target article (and the other content at the source article is unsuitable) then the source article can just be changed into a redirect. I think that appeared to be the source of the confusion here, where I was arguing that the source article should be redirected to the target article, but the relevant content was already there.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) Well I have made reasonable efforts to explain to you why I did what I did and removing a PROD as noted can be done by anyone, it is not a you must immediately resolve the issue. No indication that I should remain topic banned from creating pages (and I've never been banned from removing PRODs anyway). My conduct was well within the spirit and letter of our PROD (anyone may contest) and deletion policy (merge/redirection should be used if possible).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to Swarm) The principal of BRD applies more with deletion that other actions (since deletion can't simply be "reverted" by anyone, stricter conditions are generally in place for getting a page deleted than making a change to a page). In this case you boldly suggested deletion of the article, I removed that suggestion with a "watered down" suggestion that it be merged/redirected. This would likewise apply to page moves and creation. If I preform a move that is opposed it can be reverted and then discussed and that I should take on that feedback for similar cases. Likewise if I create unsuitable articles then I should take the feedback that I should not create similar pages without discussion with the user who questions them. In the PROD case you have feedback that such cases where a merge/redirect is useful, it should be done instead of deletion. Anyway my suggestion of 1RR or 0RR would surely address the potentially controversial moves.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to SilkTork) Well I have has an entire year with the restrictions, which is plenty long enough. But if only 1 can be removed then I'd strongly favour the page creation, not the page move restriction. A missing article in my books is far more of a problem that an incorrectly titled one. I usually only take pages to RM that are controversial/disruptive (or are uncontroversial but don't know the correct target etx) so the number of unsuccessful RMs is not necessarily a good indicator. Those that aren't controversial I have been waiting to have the restrictions removed to preform myself. For example it would be possible to send 100 blatant attack pages to AFD and have all of them successfully deleted but that would be inappropriate since such pages should be speedily deleted instead. I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved. As noted I would be happy with a 1RR or 0RR with moves and/or an expectation that I revert any moves that are reasonably challenged. That restriction would be workable. So yes the number of unsuccessful RMs is not a good indicator because they are probably not moves that I would be making myself, this is because we are talking about moves that I thought were problematic/controversial/disruptive enough to go through RM V those that I didn't think were controversial. In response to "It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests." I actually think I have already done my most controversial move requests since its like removing a cork from a bottle under pressure, I hadn't been able to make such requests for years and suddenly could, thus I don't expect I will be making a significant number of controversial requests in the foreseeable future, although there will probably still be a few from moves that I think are too controversial to make myself. Also note that I was only formerly banned from geographical naming convention, not non geographical naming conventions. However I decided to stay away from it entirely because I wasn't happy with excluding myself from geographical ones and it would be easy to "step on the edge" of the restriction.


 * So lets go to the page creation which there hasn't been much discussion here. If the move restriction continued but I could still create new pages, it would be a pain since disambiguation is often needed of existing titles and while creating, I will also find articles that are incorrectly names (when checking missing articles that are only redirects, sometimes this is because an article is named incorrectly rather than it doesn't have a standalone article). My priority is the missing civil parishes in England. Civil parishes are legally recognized census areas and thus clearly should have articles. In this case a ban that only allows me to create civil parishes (current and former and the handful of equivalent Welsh ones than need articles/redirects) may be workable since there are still a large number. The inability to create other articles would still be a bit of a roadblock but it may be the least bad option, particularly if there is a way I can create other pages such as by asking an admin that I know or through the AFC process (see User:Crouch, Swale/Risga for example). What opinion do you have on this?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (reply to SilkTork) I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%). Its the number of controversial undiscussed moves that I preform. Making requests at RMT might be seen as evasion if I did many, see Special:Diff/837050534 for example of a user who was banned from making moves. However I did make a few (6) and all were completed. IMO that anyway suggests that there isn't a problem there and I would be more likely to make a request that I thought was marginly controversial at RMT that making it myself since RMT involves another pair of eyes. Consider for example, you're an admin doing NPP, you come across 3 articles, the 1st is a blatant attack page, you can see clearly that it meets G10 and delete it you're self and add Huggle/db-attack-notice to the author. The 2nd is an article that appears to meet A7 but you're not sure so you tag it with db-bio and add Db-bio-notice to the author for another admin to assess. The 3rd has a credible claim of significance so you do WP:BEFORE and WP:PRD it. The same applies with move requests, some are clear that you can do you're self, others may be considered controversial and some are likely (like Noss) and some are clearly. As a further point if the move but not page creation restrictions are removed then shouldn't I be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages since they fit in more along with page moves than page creation since if I move "Foo" to "Foo, Qualifier" then "Foo" needs to become a DAB page.
 * Indeed I have created drafts in my user space, another one is User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish. However I thought that waiting until I can create the pages myself was more suitable as long as I created a few good ones in my user space. The new articles on civil parishes may end up clogging up AFC with many new articles that are clearly suitable. I was mainly thinking that could be used for other topics that may not meet out inclusion guidelines.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Reply to SMcCandlish) Well as noted the few RMT requests I did make all were done so the point about the ~30% failure rate at RM is still pretty irrelveant.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I have produced the User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish which is an example of a CP. CPs are clearly notable and WP should have had them all created years ago, similar to municipalities. I think it is unreasonable to continue the restrictions as is. Can we at least allow creating new CPs in mainspace please with the same point as before that it can be reinstated. Hartwell, Buckinghamshire, Willingale, Essex and Throcking among others. I think the suggestion about AFC would be reasonable for topics other than CPs. See Talk:Pembrokeshire where I have asked if there is more coverage for User:Crouch, Swale/Sheep Island, Pembrokeshire.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the "failed" RMs have been closed as non consensus, not many have been closed as "non moved". In any case this isn't much evidence for keeping the move ban. I'd say that if we were to only count those that were closed as clear consensus against, it would be more like 5%.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is viable or fair, I have numerous pages to create and just taking into account the current missing civil parishes, this would mean it would take over 50 years to create them all! I have not to my drafts since I was waiting until I could freely create them but I don't think the current restrictions specifically prevented that anyway. I deemed creating a few in my userspace as sufficient. Why at least can't we exclude civil parishes from this?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that in the past I had many problems but I have continued and continued to change my behavior and become much more accepting and agreeing with the points made by others but unfortunately it never seems to be good enough. Doesn't the drafts that I have created and some of my other statements show that I have improved my conduct greatly since 2011. Its incredibly frustrating to still be denied after all theses appeals over all these years. Would you say that my expectations are not viable and it would be better to just get rid of me from the project altogether (and reinstate the sit-ban), rather than continuously having this that fails? I don't want to continue to push for something that isn't going to happen or will take ridiculously long.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the drafts that I have provided in my user space are already this step or creating suitable content. I didn't ask for review at AFC because I thought that the few drafts were sufficient in this step. I even asked here prior to this about what I would do. I feel I have been hugely let down yet again. I have tried and tried to do as others have asked and it seems that its never good enough and I get denied time and time again. Why can't we except civil parishes from the article creation restriction?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I am willing to take this step. The question however is why weren't those steps suggested after the previous appeal? Why wasn't it suggested that I should get a number of articles created that way before? Anyway wouldn't you agree that User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and User:Crouch, Swale/Risga are suitable? and demonstrate the ability to create suitable content.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general? That was one of the points of creating those drafts. That's the kind of feedback that would be helpful in moving forward but I haven't received any since July (although some of that will probably come from AFC), if I don't have any feedback then its far more difficult in working with the community in finding a workable way of creating the missing articles without disruption.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks SilkTork, the AFC should help with that, maybe I should also ask some projects for advice, for example WikiProject Devon for South Huish and WikiProject Scottish Islands for Riaga.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a few more drafts. Hopefully they will be accepted.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm
I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards, Swarm  {talk}  23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed CS’s replies to both myself and BMK, I’m simply stunned at the surreal detachment from simple editing concepts. Swarm  {talk}  05:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still wholly unsatisfied with the "word soup" the user's spouting, which shows no reasonable understanding of why their conduct was disruptive and unreasonable. I have even less faith then I initially did that the user can effectively understand and communicate during simple incidents of contention and/or dispute. Swarm  {talk}  07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The user's defense has fallen on the procedural point that anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, showing no indication of clue as to how they impeded uncontroversial bold editing, which is encouraged as a matter of policy. The user admits that they simply wanted the title to be redirected to the parent article, which makes their insistence on obstructing an uncontroversial deletion in favor of a non-needed "merge" all the more bizarre. I'm going to stop responding, so as to avoid derailing this request, but I think it's quite clear that this user struggles with straightforward editing concepts, procedures, and acceptable practices. This lack of competence is unacceptable from a user who's requesting to be allowed to perform potentially-controversial actions such as page moves. Frankly I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of a tightening of restrictions. Swarm  {talk}  08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken
I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement: It would seem to me that if it's already adequately covered in a parent article, there is no necessity for a spin-off article, and if there is a modicum of additional information, it can be added to the parent article. The only situation I can see is if there is a great deal of relevant information to add, at which point the subsidiary subject is in danger of unbalancing the parent article. Under those circumstances, a spin-off article would be appropriate but only if the subject of the new article is notable. Being part of a parent article does not automatically confer notability on the subsidiary subjects within the article.In any case, I would like additional explication from Crouch, Swale concerning their statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'
 * Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'
 * Incidentally, just an irrelevant side comment: even though I know that "Crouch, Swale" is the name of a place (because I looked it up), every time I see the username, my first thought is that it refers to a law firm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't at all clear to me from your prior statement.I would note that a merge an d a redirect are not quite the same thing. In a merge, the material from the subsidiary article is added to the primary article, and then the subsidiary article is replaced with a redirect; no (or little) information is lost in the process.  In the case of a redirect without merge, the subsidiary article is simply blanked and replaced with a redirect; any information in the subsidiary article which is not already in the primary article is lost.  Thus arguing for a merge is not the same as arguing for a redirect.  In the argument for a merge, reasons have to be brought up for saving the information that would be lost in a redirect, and also for the merging not unbalancing the primary article with too much information about a subsidiary topic.As for you claim about not being familiar with notability guidelines in the area of discussion: how can you argue the notability of the subsidiary article, or the need to save the information in it, if you don't know what is and is not considered notable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Re "If the [ WP:RMTR ] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.

As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)

I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:12, 8 January 2019 (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).



Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * You contribute to Wikipedia predominately on articles about "places".  Accuracy and oversight in this topic area is low, and I would not grant an appeal unless it was free of risk that you would not need your contributions heavily monitored.
 * You frequently request moves (eg Noss) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg Sometown &rarr; Sometown (city) and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg Sometown (disambiguation) &rarr; Sometown.  These requests are governed by extensive rules (cf WP:PLACE) because each case is unique.
 * You also make editorial judgments about whether places exist or do not (eg Gluibuil, Shetland), which are important to get right. Wikipedia has had "places" articles that are wildly divergent from reality, eg location, or indeed document places that simply don't exist.
 * Your passion for this area is clear, and I note you have patiently borne these restrictions for a year.  I also sympathise with your comment in late 2017 that your singular interests make these restrictions taxing.  However, I would not loosen the restrictions simply because another year has gone.  And I am not moved to agreement by your submission here.  Your edits are large in quantity, but seem to generate more dispute than I'd like to see. How can we be sure it's safe to permit you the ability of moving place-related pages?   AGK  &#9632;  14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * point about my question of the existence of a place is – I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful.  Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that.  Would you please comment on this?   AGK  &#9632;  13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In order to minimise potential problems, I think if we are to lift restrictions we should follow the example of the previous appeal, and lift just one of the restrictions to see how that goes. As the restriction previously lifted was involvement in page move discussions, it seems appropriate that the restriction we should consider this time would be making page moves. In order to help us decide if this is the right time to be lifting this restriction could you give us the figure of how many page move requests you have started in the past six months, and the percentage (or number) of those that have been successful and unsuccessful. As you note above, it is to be expected that a number of those would be unsuccessful, but if that number is too high that would be worrisome because those would be moves that with page move restriction lifted you'd be doing yourself with, as AGK points out, little oversight because of the low interest in place articles and in page moves. The problem with making inappropriate page moves is that they can set a precedent - users tend to follow what is already there, so one inappropriate move can result in a number of new articles with inappropriate names. Now, the exact percentage of unsuccessful move requests you have made that individual Committee members may find acceptable is going to vary, though in my mind I have a figure of less than 5%. It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests. SilkTork (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that around 30% of your RM have been unsuccessful, I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the restriction on page moves. I take on board that RM discussions are for potentially controversial moves, but you could use the Uncontroversial technical requests format, given that you are unable to complete the moves yourself. If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area.
 * As regards page creation - again, I'd like to see some evidence of successful page creation requests before lifting that restriction. The rules on your page creation do allow you to create articles in your own userspace, as you have done with User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. What I'd like to see, in agreement with other Committee members, is you utilising Articles for creation to have these articles moved into mainspace. If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction. SilkTork (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The figure comes from Crouch, Swale: "I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", later "I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%)". SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: " I don't see how this is viable or fair". That's not an encouraging statement for you to be making, as it indicates you are not yet understanding the community's concerns with your behaviour. This motion is the best chance you're going to get of having restrictions lifted, and even then it's likely to be a close call. Indeed, that very statement of yours is giving me pause for thought as generally we lift restrictions for people who show some understanding of the concerns that led to them having restrictions imposed. There is this sense in you of wanting things to be done your way, and seeing it as unfair if things are not done the way you want them to be. SilkTork (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On the positive side, no one felt the need to re-impose the topic ban during the suspension period. For page moves - I'd agree that there's been more dispute than I'd expect about some of these requests, but, where did you get the 30% failure rate on RMs? For article creation - the draft articles in your userspace look OK to me (knowing nothing about their topics) but I don't see much substantive content editing in mainspace recently (if I'm wrong, can you point to examples?) I'd prefer to see some examples of content development on existing articles before letting you start new ones. AfC is overloaded as it is, but I could also see allowing one submission at a time to AfC, possibly with a size minimum to correct for the past issues with very short articles lacking in context and covering questionably notable topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious where the 30% number came from, SilkTork. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It came from Crouch, Swale himself in his comments above. Crouch, Swale said: "around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", then he later clarified that to: "probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%". SilkTork (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the page moving sanction as very minimal, simply requiring this editor go to WP:RM due to their demonstrably poor judgement in this area in the past. I don't see the rather high percentage of failed requested moves to be a shining endorsement that this sanction should be removed. As for the page creation sanction, I'm more open to its removal but agree with my colleagues that I would want to see a substantial history of successful drafts going through WP:AFC first. Decline from me. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now, I don't see a compelling reason to entirely remove the restrictions, given the history. I do like OR's suggestion of one AfC submission permitted at once as a compromise between zero creations permitted and a flood of one-line place stubs. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support OR's proposal for one AFC submission at a time. <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 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought you'd found some kind of cool tool :) I don't think I can judge the success rate of RM requests just based on CS's self-estimate, without knowing either how accurate it is or what the baseline rate is for other participants. In any case I'm more inclined to ease the page creation than moving restrictions - having to get your move proposals reviewed is, as Rob says, a very light sanction. In the interest of moving things along, motion below on the AfC idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One per seven days seems reasonable. We can always readjust if it causes problems down the line. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good offer, and I'd like to see Crouch, Swale take full advantage. I wouldn't be concerned at the occasional rejection by AfC, this can happen, especially as AfC are very precise in what they accept. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Restoring my support based on Crouch, Swale's more positive response and the new evidence provided: . SilkTork (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * AGK &#9632;  10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * <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>) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to re-affirm my support here. I'm willing to allow Crouch, Swale the opportunity to create articles and I believe the motion is a good option of 1 per week. However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby. <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>) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Letting this user back at all was a colossal mistake, one I will not vote to relax any restrictions on. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The recent comments by this editor have convinced me to oppose. I don't believe the attitude displayed is consistent with a return to productive editing in this area. I'm very worried that it sounds like the desired "endgame" of this editor appears to be the rapid creation of about 1,000 articles in a narrow topic area. I don't think there's a true understanding here of why past behavior was problematic and why this Committee and the community are understandably hesitant to roll back these sanctions. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I too am concerned 's continued protests, particularly as the latest outbursts have come after I cautioned him regarding his attitude. I feel that BU Rob13's concern that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs is correct. If we had evidence that Crouch, Swale could be relied upon to follow our inclusion criteria and find and read reliable sources appropriately and intelligently, that would ease our concerns, but he seems unwilling to do this (and a handful of draft articles and a note to a former arb are far from sufficient evidence); and I am reminded of the errors he made in  this move request, in which he was relying on a distorted search of his own invention on a user-generated website to establish notability for a page title. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to support based on Crouch, Swale's more encouraging positive response, and starting to provide more evidence of the work he plans to do. While the intended civil parish articles are likely to remain stubs, they do fulfil the gazetteer function of the Five pillars, and the examples provided appear to meet our inclusion criteria.  SilkTork (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like doing this would be a huge net negative for the project, and a lot more work for our already overworked AfC volunteers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain
 * The same issue arose in July 2018 where an easement process to lift sanctions in an incremental process was not willingly accepted by the individual. Editing is a privilege, not an entitlement or inherent right. When an individual's past actions have resulted in several blocks and sanctions as a result of disruptive editing, additional care and precaution must be taken to protect the project and limit the risk of further disruption. While undoubtedly frustrating for the individual, it is without question a situation of their own making. Comments like this one seem to undermine the willingness required to take responsibility for their past actions and adhere to the rules and policies that govern Wikipedia, including patience to try lighter restrictions in place of blocks and more severe sanctions. <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 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am moving my oppose to abstain as the motion is currently held up by a procedural issue relating to the exact number of active-voting Arbitrators. Rather than waiting days for an activity measure to kick in, this will effectively allow the motion to pass by inevitable majority vote. <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 15:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment


 * I was considering a motion along these lines, but with a restriction of one submission a month because the speed at which AfC moves we might be waiting for years before Crouch, Swale has enough submissions considered for us to make any kind of assessment if he's only allowed one at a time. At one a month the odds are better that in 12 months there'd be enough submissions either accepted or rejected for us to make a meaningful decision. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go even more frequent than that. At least seven days between submissions does what we want (avoid a flood at AfC) while being a minimal restriction on the activity of an editor creating high-quality articles. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if the concern is about the slow rate of progress through AfC due to their long backlog, we need a balance between CS getting some articles through and not overloading the queue. There are currently 1209 articles in the queue, and I don't see stats on average-time-to-review, but it looks like the oldest ones still waiting are about 5 weeks old. So once a month is closer to steady-state, but could actually be slower than "one at a time", guesstimating from the submission-time distribution on the AfC page that most articles are reviewed by 3-4 weeks. (In looking into this, not for the first time I find myself really wishing that AfC would start categorizing drafts by topic, but never mind...) I suspect that whatever rate we specify, articles will be submitted at close to the maximum (that's what I'd do). Given that 7-14 days seems reasonable, with no prejudice against another ARCA (or a community action) in the hopefully-unlikely event that the articles do end up failing repeatedly. Edited as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to acknowledge that these restrictions exist due to substantial disruption in the past. I understand you're trying to move past that, and I commend you for it. This isn't a permanent solution. It's a temporary one to give you an opportunity to show us that we no longer have anything to worry about. The alternative would likely be a declined appeal, since we don't really have a basis on which to remove the sanctions at this time. If all goes well for a period of time (6 months, say), I would certainly invite an appeal of this loosened restriction, at which point we could further roll this back. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because passing articles through AfC isn't that extreme of a restriction and allows you to show there will not be disruption when we allow you to create articles freely. The fact that you seem unwilling to accept steps toward reducing your sanctions less than a full allowance to create as many articles as you wish is giving me pause. Your intransigent attitude here is starting to feel similar to the attitude that led to the initial ban, and I'm especially unimpressed with the victim mentality evident in your latest comment. Are you willing to try this as a step toward removing this sanction, or is this an exercise in futility? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with your frustration, but agree with BU Rob13 above. The committee is cautious when peeling back sanctions.  As I said to you at the beginning of this appeal, sanctions are not terminated merely because some time has passed.  Please treat this motion as an opportunity to contribute in more ways than before – rather than as a set of extra restrictions or the granting of less relief from restrictions than you requested.   AGK  &#9632;  10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather like Boris Johnson just before the Brexit referendum, I am veering about in all directions like a supermarket trolley on this issue. On the one hand there is the possibility that you are just biding your time in order to unleash hundreds of civil parish stubs on Wikipedia which will need to be examined by someone to check if they are worthwhile; on the other is the possibility that you will be able to produce articles of merit rather than meaningless stubs. What is lacking here is solid evidence either way. At the previous request it was pointed out that simply waiting 6 months is not enough, that you would need to be providing evidence (such as that you understand article creation criteria and that you understand article titles). It is highly likely that you are a good faith editor who is not quite grasping what has already been asked of you, and you are truly bemused by this process. You were told last time that two examples would not be enough ("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".) And yet that is what you are falling back on here. If you had a body of those civil parish articles in your sandbox to show us, all of which were securely cited to reliable sources and consisted of several paragraphs, then I wouldn't be hesitating. What you have to show us isn't enough, though, which is why I suggested we consider asking you to go via AfC. Given the lack of evidence it seemed a reasonable offer, but you have resisted the offer, as though we were in effect imposing more restrictions on you rather than allowing you to create an article a week. Now, my first impulse in response to your question ("Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general?") was to suggest that you take them through AfC, and then I realised that by doing so you would be infringing your restriction. Which gave me pause for thought. We are caught at this point where we lack the evidence required to comfortably lift your restriction. But the reason we lack the evidence is that you haven't taken on board the advice from last time. If we do allow you to create articles via AfC, will you just submit the two you keep offering us, and then return in six months and request (or expect) your article creation restriction be lifted? Really, I'm not seeing a huge difference between allowing you to submit via AfC or you creating those articles in your sandbox, as both ways we'll end up with the evidence we need, except that by allowing you to submit via AfC you might feel more motivated, but an overworked community has to deal with your submissions. I'm still not entirely sure where I am with this because I am in favour of helping you contribute positively to the project, but hesitant about allowing you to waste the community's time. I am reflecting that by allowing this we are not allowing you to create hundreds of stubs, but giving you the motivation (and possibly enough WP:ROPE) to provide for us one way or the other enough evidence to make a more meaningful decision down the road. On the other I'm thinking this is another step towards edging off the lid of Pandora's box without you having done anything significant since your last request. My supermarket trolley is still pointing toward opposing this, but only slightly, and only with the notion that it is in your hands to provide us with the evidence we need to make a secure decision. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months (January 2019)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected
 * AN
 * Notification of Sanction
 * Note: This appeal is of an enforcement action under .  AGK  &#9632;  13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Diff


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Sandstein


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Statement by Sandstein
I recommend declining this appeal.

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

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer - Some of the commenters on the AN thread supported allowing editing in the football subject area, but changed their minds when FkpCascais made edits in that area while the lifting of the topic ban was being considered. When the appeal was archived without being closed, only two people had made formal bolded !votes, and both of them opposed lifting the ban in toto, without an exception for football. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer
It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken - I saw that. It's a terrible look. That being said, I'm satisfied the week long block handled the situation properly. I see this as a situation where we either lose an editor, or give the editor one final chance to comply. That's why I'm setting the restrictions to be crystal clear and proposing a total site ban if there's any non-compliance. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside to some comments above regarding the politicalisation of football in the area, I edit primarily football articles, especially Croatian football articles, and am familiar with the region. I see absolutely no problem with what I've proposed above with regards to politics. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Clerk notes

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


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

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My default position for this sort of thing is that "decline where an uninvolved administrator has acted within the bounds of their discretion". Simply, I do not see that Sandstein has acted incorrectly here, and I am not willing to overturn his decision. Although I am willing to consider further, at present, I'm a decline <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>) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Sandstein said, that football related articles can be a flashpoint for Balkans related issues, I do not feel it's wise to lift the topic ban for this area. Therefore I must decline this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline both requests. The ban was within Sandstein's discretion and has community consensus behind it to boot. FkpCascais has given us no good reason to lift it and indeed seems to have little understanding of why it was placed in the first place. I see no pressing need to make an exception for football. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (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 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline as above, this is within normal admin discretion. As a piece of advice,, the idea behind topic bans like this is to encourage editors to direct their efforts to other, less contentious topic areas, and to appeal the topic ban after accumulating a history of unproblematic editing elsewhere. Not editing at all for six months is unlikely to result in a successful appeal at that time. But if you like chinchillas, editing about chinchillas would be perfect :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline. Amongst the misconduct that led to sanctions,  even adopted a nickname (mosqueteers) for the opposing disputants.  Clearly, this topic ban was necessary and proportionate.   AGK  &#9632;  13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (January 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Motion: Ferahgo the Assassin editing restrictions modified (September 2016)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Motion: Ferahgo the Assassin editing restrictions modified (September 2016)
 * Requesting lift of race and intelligence topic ban.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
I would like to formally appeal my topic ban from the “race and intelligence” topic area. I believe it is appropriate for this ban to be lifted for three main reasons: 1) The topic ban is quite old now, and I have engaged in no contentious or otherwise inappropriate behavior since I returned to editing four years ago; 2) I am now acquiring professional expertise in an area adjacent to this topic, which has been considered under the ban, and 3) I have fulfilled the requirements given to me by the arbitration committee when I first appealed the topic ban about nine months ago. Details below:

Last April, I made a request for clarification about the bounds of my topic ban. I made this request in order to understand whether I could use my professional expertise in behavioral genetics—as I am now more than halfway through a Ph.D. in this area—to improve the encyclopedia. ArbCom concluded that I should not be editing articles about intelligence or behavioral genetics in general, even if they don’t involve race, as long as I'm under a "race and intelligence" topic ban. They also weren't willing to lift my topic ban at that time, but said they would reconsider the request after six months of productive and issue-free editing in unrelated topics.

I have now met these requirements: It is over eight months hence, and during this time I have made over 500 edits, mostly to topics related to paleoartists and especially to the Paleoart article, which I have recently raised to "Good Article" status.

It has been quite difficult to research and improve these articles while simultaneously studying an unrelated topic in graduate school. My graduate work has involved doing research, attending conferences, and publishing papers related to behavior genetics and intelligence research, with others in press (please let me know if you’d like to see examples of my research privately). I humbly submit that with my topic ban removed, I could help to improve many articles in these areas that have been off-limits to me since before I began my Ph.D.

For example, one of my projects, just completed after 2 years of data collection, relates to mental chronometry. Wikipedia’s mental chronometry article is one of the articles that I was told last April not to edit as long as I’m topic banned. I wrote the first half of it in 2010, beginning with the early history of MC, and left the article in an unfinished state when I was topic banned in October 2010. In the time since then other editors have made minor additions, but the article is still in substantially the same state that I left it in more than eight years ago, because no one else has had the ability and motivation to add a complete summary of modern MC research. For a long time, the article was tagged as being in need of being updated.

I think that when considering the necessity of a topic ban, ArbCom should take into account the effect that an editor’s absence has on encyclopedic coverage of topics that only a few people are both motivated and knowledgable enough to write about here. Other examples I provided last April of articles in great need of improvement include gene–environment correlation and polygenic score, both of which are also topics on which I’ve done research.

Happy to answer questions, provide detail of my history in this area, and further credentials if requested. Thank you for your consideration.
 * @ Beyond My Ken: When this came up last April/May, you suggested a sort of probation period, which I thought (and still do) would be fair. : “On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing.” The only things that've changed between now and then is that I've edited productively in other areas and that I've published a bit more research, none of which borders on fringe theories. As stated, if the arbitrators would like to see some of my research privately or evidence of my enrollment in a Ph.D. program, I am happy to provide it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ SilkTork: No, we haven't shared an IP since I returned to editing in 2014. I've lived in several different states since then. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Opabinia regalis: Just sent email to the mailing list. Please let me know if there's anything you'd like clarified. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ AGK: Here are some specific changes I'm hoping to make to articles in this area. As you'll note from my email, these all relate to research I've participated in (though of course I will abstain from citing myself!).


 * Mental chronometry: When I last worked on this article substantially in 2010, I was relying heavily on Clocking the Mind for structure and organization, as it was the only recent overview I was aware of. Now, however, I own what I believe to be every major, modern secondary/tertiary source that overviews mental chronometry research, including Posner, Luce, Vernon, and others. The article as it stands has little information about modern models and applications of response time data. It only has one citation to the Posner book and two short paragraphs about Posnerian methods, when he is one of the most famous researchers in this area. It has a motley, random collection of paradigms. It needs to be organized, and it needs detail and citations on topics covered by Posner, e.g., attention, orienting, and code coordination. Luce, by contrast, takes a technical and mathematical approach to mental chronometry. The article needs to explain core concepts addressed in depth by Luce such as stochastic accumulation of information, model differences in discrete vs. continuous time, random variables and mixture models. Vernon's overview includes chapters by different researchers in different areas. Some of these authors disagree with each other; e.g., Robert Sternberg on a triarchic perspective on MC's relationship to cognitive ability stands in contrast to a more one-sided view the article currently takes. The article should report such differing views. Some modern models that have become very influential, such as Ratcliff's diffusion model, are entirely absent from the article. Diffusion modeling is what I'm using for the MC study I reference in my email. This term as it relates to mental chronometry is likely notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would be happy to expand this article with all of this, based on my collection of well-known overviews and textbooks on MC (none of which mention race or group differences).


 * Gene–environment correlation: Note that the majority of this article refers to things we've learned about this phenomenon from quantitative (twin, adoption, and so on) studies, many of which were conducted in the '70s, but very little on molecular genetic studies. The most recent sources cited in this article are from 2007. Since then, there has been an important and promising burst in molecular genetic studies that have had a huge impact on this field in just the past year. This "genetic nurture" effect has been reported on by Kong et al., Bates et al., and others in press. This clearly important topic is completely absent from this article. I would update this article with explanations and rationale for this exciting new area, including criticism and limitations where sources mention these.


 * Polygenic score: This is a short article with motley redlinks and more "further readings" than article text. It has two sections, one of which is a somewhat random collection of correlations. I would expand this article by explaining in greater depth how polygenic scores are mathematically calculated, the history of regression models and predictive improvements over the years, how these scores can be practically beneficial, and published criticisms/limitations of these scores and their usage.


 * Articles on a variety of software and techniques used for polygenic score construction, biological annotation of GWASes, and the handling of linkage disequilibrium. For example, Linkage disequilibrium score regression is now a promising stub that needs a lot of expansion. Its lede paragraph quotes descriptions of the technique directly from articles, such as Here, the "linkage disequilibrium score" for a SNP "is the sum of LD r2 measured with all other SNPs", without explaining what any of this means. Most of these concepts in statistical genetics are technical and complex, and—if they have articles at all—often written in a way that is inaccessible to laymen. I could help a great deal in clarifying many of these topics. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ SilkTork: I am a member of ISIR and I usually present at their annual meeting. It is a large community with a diversity of viewpoints. It is also the only large organization of intelligence researchers in the world, and certainly the only international one, and therefore almost literally every currently working researcher who studies human cognitive ability is a member of ISIR. Other well-known ISIR members include Steven Pinker, Robert Plomin, Matt McGue, Ian Deary, Camilla Benbow, David Lubinski, and James Flynn, who is renowned for the Flynn effect which describes the observed secular (environment-mediated) gain in IQ scores. Flynn, who won ISIR’s lifetime achievement award in 2017, is also a well-known opponent of the hereditarian viewpoint in R&I. The society and its lifetime achievement winners have been covered neutrally by sources such as Science and Vanderbilt News. I’m disappointed that news sources like New Statesman have chosen not to cover the more mainstream and common viewpoints within ISIR. In any case, the vast majority of ISIR’s members do not study group differences, myself included.


 * With all due respect, it seems unfair to judge all members of an entire organization based on the views of a small number of them. (I am also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, if that matters. I have never attended the London Conference on Intelligence or received money from them, nor the Pioneer Fund.) I do hope that the transparency about my research and the prestige of my coauthors speaks for itself. Moving forward, all I can really do is strive to produce good research, and hope that in time the public perception of the community changes. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken: I haven't gone into detail about my personal viewpoints because I don't believe they should be relevant in this appeal. As SilkTork said, my sanctions were for my non-article edits and for violating WP:SHARE, not because my article edits reflected biased editing or POV-pushing. I object to being judged for what’s inside my head, when one of ArbCom's longstanding principles is that editors should be judged based on their on-Wiki (and occasionally off-Wiki) behavior. I remember watching the Climate change arbitration case progress around the same time as the R&I case, and one of the principles outlined in that case seems applicable here: “The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective.” Note that this was drafted in the context of climate change denial, which is more obviously fringey than hereditarianism. That said, if ArbCom requires me to explain my views, I’ll do so in an email. I also should note that the class I’m teaching starts on Tuesday, so I’ll likely have less time to respond to queries in the coming week. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Joe: “Like BMK, I can only interpret her unwillingness to answer as confirmation that she does.” No, you would be wrong to assume this. In addition to feeling I should be judged only for my behavior, explaining my viewpoint here goes against the topic ban itself. However, I am willing to discuss it privately. Please see the email I’ve sent to the committee. Also, please remember that all of the technical edits I referred to wanting to make, as well as the detail I provided about my research, have nothing to do with race. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk)


 * @ Joe: As per the advice from SilkTork's email, I'll briefly state my views here, but will be unwilling to argue about details in public. I do not believe the available evidence is sufficient to support either the hereditarian perspective or the pure environmentalist perspective. One thing I've learned since 2012 is that the evidence that would be needed to support hereditarianism is a lot more complex than I thought back then, and is still largely out of reach. My understanding is that an "agnostic" perspective is most mainstream among people who actually study cognitive ability and genetics, as reflected in Earl Hunt's textbook on intelligence: "Neither I nor anyone else knows the cause of the differences in indices of intelligence among various racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, there almost certainly is not any single cause, and the causes may vary for different comparisons." As I said before, I can explain my views in more detail in an email if desired, including other mainstream sources that support an agnostic perspective. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ GorillaWarfare: Thank you for pointing out WP:BANEX—I wasn’t familiar with that policy. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Arbitrators: To publicly state my view unambiguously, SilkTork asked if I'd be willing to post this sentence from my email on-Wiki: I do not intrinsically feel that white people are likely to be more genetically intelligent than black people, nor that Asians are likely to be more genetically intelligent than black and white people. The question is an empirical one, not answerable by a priori convictions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
The OP's basic case is that the topic ban is old, but indefinite topic bans are not generally lifted because of their age. The OP has -- and apparently still has -- a strong personal POV concerning the topic, and in the past has shown that she is unable to edit without bias because of this. There is no reason to think that anything would be different now. The awarding of a PhD in a subject is no guarantee that an editor's contributions will not continue to be WP:FRINGE -- after all, most scientific fringe theories are promulgated by subject experts who happen to disagree with the consensus view of their colleagues. Whether or not this is the case -- or even whether the OP has in actual fact earned a legitimate PhD in the subject area -- is unknown to us.I strongly urge that the topic ban be left in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ferahgo the Assassin: The April/May clarification request was about whether you could edit in the narrow subject of "heritability of psychological traits", and was not a request for the lifting of your topic ban. Thee's a significant difference with being OK with a probationary period of editing in a fairly restricted area that was at the edge of your topic ban (but still inside of it), and being OK with a probationary period of editing in a broad subject area (which encompasses the entirety of your topic ban) in which your were sufficiently biased and disruptive to be first site banned, and then allowed back with a topic ban instead.  Because of that categorical difference, I remain strongly opposed to lifting your topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the convenience of the committee:
 * Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.5: Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked
 * Race and intelligence case: Findings of fact 3.6: Ferahgo and Occam are topic banned
 * Race and intelligence case: Remedies 2.1: Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned
 * Race and intelligence case: Modified by motion 2: (Ferahgo the Assassin's site-ban suspended)
 * Clarification request (May 2018):
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the list of potential edits you posted above: what about your current topic ban -- in your understanding of it -- prevents you from making those edits right now? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you told us about another researcher's views about the hereditarian viewpoint regarding connections between race and intelligence, but what are your current views in that regard?I anticipate some objections from the committee about a question like that, along the lines that "We are not the Thought Police", and I'm sensitive to that. However, this is a case in which the subject, Ferragho the Assassin, was vocal in the past regarding her belief that there is a causal connection between race and intelligence.  It was not simply, as SilkTork puts it "that the previous concerns were in regard to the non-article edits in support of Captain Occam", but that the contents of those edits, which represented her personal views, were WP:FRINGE, raising the very real possibility of her controversial personal views slipping into her content editing.  I am not asking the question of a newbie with no record, this is an editor who has been site banned, and then topic banned from the subject of race and intelligence, and has only been re-admitted to the community after quite a long period of time.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to determine if Farrahgo has changed her views as a result of the passage of time and her additional schooling and research, or if she is still a hard-line hereditarian, as she was when she was site banned from Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my last thoughts on this request: I believe that it would be unwise for the committee to lift FtA's sanctions absent a statement from her regarding her personal and professional position regarding the connections between race and intelligence. Experience has shown that she holds strong FRINGE views on this controversial subject, and the danger of her views skewing articles she edits if she still holds similar views is strong. At the very least, a probationary period seems like the minimal necessary protection for the encyclopedia, however, absent a statement from her -- which she is clearly hoping to avoid having to make -- I remain strongly opposed to lifting her restrictions in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that FtA does not wish to make her personal and professional views about the heredetarian aspects of race and intelligence known not because she is standing on principle, but because, in fact, her views now are the same as they were at the time she was site-banned from Wikipedia, and that she still holds very strong opinions that there is a causal connection between a person's race and their intelligence -- more specifically, that blacks are, considered as a whole, less intelligent than whites. If that is the case, to allow someone with those views the freedom to edit articles connected to the race & intelligence issue is foolhardy, and a distinct danger to Wikipedia.As we well know from other controversial areas, there are any number of ways to skew articles to favor one's personal POV, and when the editor involved in a professional, it's possible to do so in ways that can only be detected by other professionals or deeply-dedicated amateurs who are fully conversant with all aspects of the subject.  That is, there is little fear that FtA would insert "whites are more intelligent than blacks" in an article, but by selective insertions and deletions of data, information, and sources, the article can still be skewed in that direction, and the vast majority of Wikipedians -- including myself and (I presume) the entire Arbitration Committee -- would never be aware of it.The accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia is its biggest selling point as a source of information, and none of us can afford to step back from the battle to keep non-neutral POV edits out of the encyclopedia.  To allow a strict heredetarian -- if that is what FtA is -- to edit race and intelligence articles is a potentially disastrous decision.  I implore the Committee to very seriously consider these points, and to be absolutely certain that allowing a site-banned editor to edit again in an area in which she caused massive disruption is not opening the door to damaging our articles in that subject area, and our reputation overall. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * " Also, please remember that all of the technical edits I referred to wanting to make, as well as the detail I provided about my research, have nothing to do with race." Then again I ask, why do you need to be released from your topic ban to make these edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FtA, thank you for posting your views, which are sufficient to allay my concerns; I would also point out that -- as an amateur with a passing acquaintance with the subject -- I view anyone who takes a "pure" viewpoint one way or the other to be suspect.I would still suggest to the Committee that a probationary period coming off such a serious ban in a highly controversial area would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * DGG: You miss one extremely pertinent point: FtA is not a blank slate. She has already been site banned due to her disruptive editing in the race & intelligence subject area, in which she clearly held a strong strictly hereditarian position.  She was allowed back on the site on her appeal, but with a continuing topic ban regarding race & intelligence for that very reason.  To not determine if she still holds that position in considering whether to lift the topic ban would be folly, and the Committee would not be doing its job if her views were not taken into consideration.  She is not a newbie that is being inappropriately grilled about her personal opinions in some irrelevant subject area, she has a proven track record as a disruptive strict hereditarian editor, and she wants to edit in an extremely controversial area where those views are often a significant factor in biased editing. The protect of the neutrality and accuracy of the encyclopedia demands that her views be made known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
, last year you mentioned a prestigious award, which I believe was from the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) which on the face of it is a respectable organisation. But our article doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, this book mentions its 5th conference in 2004, saying "For much of their time the attendees listened to talks about how general intelligence might differ in men and women, blacks, whites, and Asians." Of course that's just one author discussing something that occurred 14 years ago. But then there's the lifetime achievement award given to Arthur Jensen, a major figure in Race and intelligence. And then there's an article this year in the New Statesman about the "London Conference on Intelligence" held several times at University College London and now being investigated at UCL. which led UCL's President and Provost to comment "I personally have no support for eugenics and I regard it as complete nonsense. I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence." The New Statesman article says "The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence, helped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites." The article is worth reading. The involvement of Linda Gottfredson and the Pioneer Fund, Richard Lynn is to say the least not encouraging. I'd like to know what you think of their views. It would probably help if you could give us details of any other awards or grants you've received.


 * I've just found London Conference on Intelligence and updated it slightly to note that its speakers seem to have included white supremacists and someone advocating child rape. Doug Weller  talk 15:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * you make some good points about ISIR. However, discussion of your views here is definitely not a violation of your topic ban, and if an Arbitrator such as User:Joe Roe asks you a question publicly you can certainly answer publicly. I hope you can appreciate the concerns expressed about the R&I area. We already have User:Deleet active in the area, and as you probably know (if only because of the publicity he garnered under his real name Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, declared on his user page) he was an active figure in the London conferences. See for instance - the YouTube journalist Tara McCarthy mentioned there is a white separatist (some would say supremacist) who supports deportation of non-white citizens.. It would be helpful if you could disclose whether you've worked with any of them - as I said, your comments here are not limited by your topic ban. Whatever you may think, I'd like to see you contribute to our scientific articles related to your PhD field as it's clear you have a lot to offer, but your unwillingness to discuss your views is a bit worrying. By the way, I am extremely impressed by your paleoart. Doug Weller  talk 14:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
(in this section, because I am no longer an arbitrator)

The question of differences, particularly intellectual differences, between those groups of people who have ben traditionally called "races" is a question to be determined by scientific evidence. It can be settled not by people's prior conceptions, but only by the analysis of data. . There are those who have misused scientific evidence in the past, to form one particular conclusion, and many of them did it for racist motives (racist not just by current views, but at the time also). I am among the great majority here who hope very much that the scientific conclusion will be that there are no such genetic differences. Many people who think this way, "believe" that this will be the conclusion, or think the scientific matter is settled. I think they are letting themselves fall in the trap of thinking the world is as they would like it to be. Ruling out with possibility of one particular side of a scientific question being right  in the absence of firm scientific evidence is prejudice. We have no business asking questions to determine any editor's beliefs, nor do we have any business in even discussing what the beliefs of an editor may be.

In editing WP one should not let one's personal beliefs enter the editing. If one does let them interfere, and the result is disruptive, one can and should be blocked, regardless of whether these beliefs are socially approved or disapproved. If an editor were to edit the relevant articles and expressedthe view that those on one side were prejudiced and the other not, they would be displaying bias, and a display of bias is likely to cause disruption. This is equally true whether the majority of us do or do not  share the bias. There is no reason to ask anyone for a statement of what they think the state of a particular scientific question is. The only possible matter of relevance here is whether they have edited disruptively.

I therefore think the above discussion of her views, or where she has received grants, or whether or not her views are associated only with fringe scientists  is inappropriate.We can only be concerned with someone persistently injecting their personal views into an article,  or using their personal views to inhibit discussion,  and I feel we are under a moral obligation to judge that without regard to whether or not the majority,  or even the great majority, of the community agrees with the views. The only acceptable way to avoid articles being biased by racism is to include proportionately all the views, just as the only acceptable way of dealing with racist academic views is to do work that disproves them.

Here is the real problem: I am fully aware that in practice the community has taken a different attitude to this depending upon whether or not they agree with the views experessed, but I think that is wholly illegitimate and an example of blatant  bias. We should be trying to prevent this, not join in it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I guess I'm a little bemused that the selling point for this ban appeal is Ferahgo's real-world expertise. I've been here for more than a decade, and I don't think we (as a community) have ever shown this much deference to someone's real-world expertise (for better or worse). We've literally blocked and sanctioned a Nobel Prize winner&mdash;he could presumably have greatly improved our coverage of certain physical phenomena, but his real-world credentials didn't exempt him from the site's behavioral standards&mdash;so the idea of unbanning someone because they're a grad student seems a little inconsistent. On the other hand, I guess I can look forward to trading on my academic credentials to get me out of trouble here someday... In any case, I guess I'm on the skeptical end. I recognize that this ban appeal is likely to succeed, and that's fine, but... there has been a history of apparent deception in the use of this account. And there's a weird pattern where Captain Occam emerges, gets sanctioned, and then Ferahgo immediately pops up asking to have her sanctions lifted. I can't escape the feeling that we're being played. I'm also not particularly reassured that we've seen the end of the efforts to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. Sure, mental chronometry seems like a harmlessly esoteric subject, and I know next to nothing about it. But it was apparently a hobbyhorse for Arthur Jensen, whose efforts to prove the inherent inferiority of blacks were notoriously funded in part by the white-supremacist Pioneer Fund. So that's enough to give me pause. Anyhow, it looks like a done deal, so I guess here's hoping I'm wrong. MastCell Talk 00:53, 24 January 2019 (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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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


 * Cross-posted from the clerks' mailing list: AGK  &#9632;  18:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * User:Ferahgo the Assassin, do you still share an IP with User:Captain Occam? SilkTork (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall, your article edits have always been fine. During the review in 2012, it was your non-article edits that were a concern. Are you able to give us some background to those edits, in particular those presented in evidence. There was speculation about those edits, and you were site-banned as they were indistinguishable from those of CO. You may email the Committee your response if you prefer. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that Ferahgo's article edits have been constructive not problematic, and that the previous concerns were in regard to the non-article edits in support of Captain Occam, a situation that it appears is unlikely to occur again, I am inclined to supporting lifting the topic ban. Serious concerns have been raised regarding members of ISIR, and these do relate to the topic area. Though I'm not seeing that those concerns relate to Ferahgo herself, it would be appropriate for Ferahgo to explain her connection to ISIR, and how she views that going forward. SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with Ferahgo's explanations regarding the concerns around some members of ISIR. I support lifting the topic ban. SilkTork (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I said at the last clarification that I would support lifting the topic ban (with perhaps a 6 month probationary period), and I can't say I've changed my opinion. I'll wait until more community members have commented, but I am heartened to see Ferahgo has done good work in a different area. <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>) 11:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I'd be interested in examples of the research you're referring to, thanks for offering to pass it along. (FYI the arbcom email has changed, it's now .) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was initially on the fence about this, but I'm persuaded that this can be removed, maybe with a short, auto-expiring probationary period as a transition step. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:, what are some examples of content changes you would make, if unbanned from the topic? The appeal only specifies what sub-topics you would edit.  Without a more compelling submission, I would deny this appeal.   AGK  &#9632;  13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading Ferahgo's comments here, I would be happy to lift the topic ban they currently have, with a 6 month probationary period to ensure all is well. Their edits have been constructive and they do show a willingness to work with the community in improving the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied that the personal dynamics between Ferahgo, Captain Occam, and Mathsci, are no longer an issue. I also have no doubt that Ferahgo's expertise could make a valuable contribution to the project. However, it does seem like they are evading the question of their own views on race and intelligence, and that makes me worry that we'd be opening the door to subtle fringe POV-pushing. I'd be happier to support lifting the topic ban if there was a probationary period after which this could be explicitly reviewed, and if Ferahgo was willing to be more open about how her views on race and heredity of intelligence have (or have not) changed since she was first sanctioned. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ferahgo's response to BMK is a red flag for me. Her topic ban was originally under the R&I DS. These were authorised to prevent POV-pushing in a topic area prone to fringe POVs (case). It's therefore highly relevant whether she still holds those fringe views. Like BMK, I can only interpret her unwillingness to answer as confirmation that she does. If that is the case, her stated intention to edit highly technical topics will only make it harder for editors to detect subtle POV-pushing. I oppose lifting the topic ban. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Ferahgo for responding. Based on the statement here and her expanded comments by email, I think we're unlikely to see any POV pushing. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a motion. We haven't discussed (and haven't been asked to discuss) the restrictions on Ferahgo using dispute resolution that have been in place since she was unbanned, but I've also moved to rescind these as necessary for editing in a contentious area like R&I. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards supporting this request, though I do think RickinBaltimore's suggestion of a 6-month probationary period is wise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BANEX, you are not prohibited from explaining your viewpoint here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Race and intelligence: motion


Enacted - GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. SilkTork (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Based on her comments in email and on this page, I can support this with the probationary period. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed, especially with the probationary period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Considering any non-involved admin may re-impose the former ER, I think this is a good and relatively low risk option. <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  18:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Per my earlier statements. <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>) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) I see where BMK and MastCell are coming from, but I also hope, and believe based on FtA's comments, that this is an example of holding and advocating fringe views based on misinformation and then later learning enough about the underlying (complete lack of) evidence to move on from those views. I'd call that taking experience into account, rather than "expertise" per se. IMO what's relatively persuasive here is that FtA held fringe views before studying the subject and at a relatively young age, rather than the common pattern of someone citing their purported expertise as justification for their fringe views. Also, in my experience people who hold these views will always find a way to unsubtly slip them into conversation and would never last six months without doing so, so I'd expect the probation period to be a useful signal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The motion has carried, but I shall say this anyway.In 2010–12, (FTA) engaged in grave misconduct.  Much of this was in aid of a second party – now indefinitely blocked – but all of it related to this topic area.  The misconduct led to, where it was not examined in greater detail because FTA was indistinguishable from another party to the case.  FTA's appeal is well-made in that it sets out some intended contributions, notes a change of academic interest, and explains their changed viewpoint on the link between intelligence and heritage.  However, the appeal fails to address the misconduct committed the last time FTA was allowed to edit content in this area.  The kind of misconduct in question is not easily actioned at AE, because it can appear innocuous; the "suspension" clause may not offer the protection we think it does.  On balance, I cannot approve returning FTA to this topic area.  AGK  &#9632;  19:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Largely per AGK, plus this strikes me as a poor idea punting to admins at AE that have, IMO, been reluctant to re-impose suspended sanctions. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Amendment request: The Rambling Man (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sandstein at 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man


 * 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


 * The Rambling Man notified


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
 * Impose a block on the order of a month in length. Lift the sanction or replace it with a topic ban or site ban.

Statement by Sandstein
The Rambling Man is subject to a Committee-imposed civility restriction. By motion of 13 December 2018, the Committee decided that, if "in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA." Such a request is hereby made.

On 29 January 2019, made an arbitration enforcement request against The Rambling Man, linking to various diffs in which The Rambling Man violated their restrictions. I identified additional violations in my assessment of the request. Enforcement action is therefore required.

The Rambling Man has previously been blocked for up to two weeks for similar conduct, and this has not deterred them from now continuing to engage in such conduct. A block of 48 hours or less would therefore, in my view, be ineffective in preventing further misconduct. By the terms of the motion previously referred to, the decision about which action to take is now the Committee's. Based on the generally accepted principle of escalating block lengths, I suggest a block length on the order of a month.

Because there is no indication that The Rambling Man understands, or is willing or able to abide by their restrictions, I also suggest that the restrictions should be lifted because they are ineffective. They should either be lifted entirely, or be replaced by a topic or site ban of a scope and duration to be determined by the Committee.  Sandstein  11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man
Words fail. The last time we were here it lasted months and ended in an amendment that was voted on while it was being reworded and that then failed at the first time of asking. I suppose if Sandstein keeps this up, eventually the result he is searching for will be delivered, infinite monkeys and infinite typewriters and all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, it's because no-one outside this tiny quorum gives a toss about such low-level baited crap. We're here to build and improve the encyclopedia, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you've nailed the patent absurdity of it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you continue to do nothing than underline the complete absurdity of the sanction and its possible interpretations. So thank you for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, you can probably add this to your list, but it's abundantly clear that Sandstein is operating in a different way to most others. He continually seeks the most stringent penalty (even today, after closing the AE and then starting this ARCA incorrectly, he starts to position for a site ban).  For the love of anything normal, that's patently absurd, this individual needs to be removed from any further commentary on me, a little like dismissing the highest and lowest scores from ice skating, you have a general consensus for a 48 hour block, one or two saying no block, one or two saying 12 hour block, one or two saying one month block, and one individual saying topic ban, site ban etc etc.  Clearly out of step with the community, despite being told that numerous times.  But the drama!  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AGK, do you mean the sanction whose wording was modified during voting last year? Is that the one? If so then quite probably yes, it could be interpreted that I questioned the competence and motivation of editors who had suddenly started editing those items which were on my watchlist. Mea culpa. But that Sandstein can comment on the AE, then close the AE himself after little time, and then start this ARCA, when the previous ARCA has not been enacted even once... well it speaks for itself. AWiley has it spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, which would have been fine until Sandstein got involved on his continued quest to escalate the block despite the last ARCA. I do note you have been editing around areas that coincide with me lately, you'd never edited Warnock even once until you undid my revision, but I'm certain that's a coincidence. Perhaps you received off-wiki notification? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course, that explains it perfectly. We won't discuss the other curious coincidences, let's just leave that until another more appropriate time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "acknowledge" your version of how you came to be the busy admin suddenly there within minutes when thousands of other editors are available, and particularly when you have been so involved with me in the recent past. Indeed, others here have already made it clear that it's not as simple as you are suggesting.    The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, as noted, happy to avoid you entirely (and have actively tried to do so actually), but when you made your first edit ever to the Warnock article with an edit summary that said "How is that a controversy? also, who cares", if you had known anything about the situation, you'd have known that quite a few reliable sources did consider it controversial and thus many, many people did care, for myriad reasons. Sorry for the harsh edit summary but you were very wrong on both counts of your own edit summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom, please can we address the issue with Sandstein's overt lack of alignment with the community and his involved stance, in particular here where he commented on this sanction, then closed the discussion prematurely, then opened an ARCA discussion prematurely? Time after time it has been demonstrated that he is too involved here to be independent enough, and his involvement clearly has a chilling effect, hence the lack of commentary on the prematurely and incorrectly closed AE report made by involved admin Vanamonde. If this is not addressed, then we will be here at ARCA once again as soon as Sandstein sees fit to make the same involved and incorrect decisions. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this whole thing a complete waste of time, please spend some time examining why this erroneous course of action (the ARCA) was taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any evidence of Arbcom looking into the peculiar approach of Sandstein to all this. There's considerable concern over his behaviour, both this time, and many previous times, not to mention that he erroneously initiated this ARCA, both from a procedural perspective, and from an INVOLVED perspective.  Arbcom would do well to start answering the many questions on this very fragile situation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, indeed, that Sandstein both got involved at the AE, then unilaterally (and incorrectly) closed it while opening this wasteful ARCA at the wrong time, needs further investigation. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that Sandstein should recuse himself from cases involving me, and these are just further examples that it appears he cannot take an independent role in such matters any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, you're entitled to that view, but that effectively renders the months of debate the previous ARCA went through completely obsolete. Is that really what you're saying, that the previous ARCA was a complete waste of time? You wouldn't be alone in that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
I'd love it if Arbcom were to withdraw sanctions. The last time it was discussed wasn't very long ago, so I suggest this discussion is premature.

Can I offer anyone any WP:TEA? It tastes better than a one month block. And especially if one month blocks are your staple diet. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , the only uninvolved administrator to comment on the case, spoke a lot of sense. It's a fuss over nothing and other users feel free to bait and prod TRM because they know of his sanctions. It's same old same old. The 'offence' here is minor in the extreme and no threat to the encyclopedia. The sanctions are ridiculously broad and reward baiters. And we go round and round with nonsense, rightly ignored by admins at the case page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
I don't know why the standard block was not imposed. In this one single incident there were 8 violations of TRM's sanctions:

and now more:
 * speculations about the motivations of editors
 * (edit summary)
 * (edit summary)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * reflections on editors' competence
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

So that's not just one violation, it's eight nine twelve violations.

Either the ArbCom sanctions should be enforced, or they should be reworded, or they should be removed entirely. There are no exemptions or exceptions to the sanctions as currently written. Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC); edited 22:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: Sandstein opines on and closes the majority of AE requests. He appeared to follow your Civility restriction, which reads at the very top: "Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA." , although he closed the AE after 2.5 days rather than 3, so that was an error which should not be repeated; the AE should have remained in place for at least three full days in accordance with the terms of the restriction. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
Diff-19/24, as linked by SL, is a clear-cut violation. I though think that blocks (48 hrs./1 month/6 months/whatever) won't make an iota of difference to TRM's attitude and this has just manifested into a recurrent time-sapping drama. Either the sanction needs to be vacated outright or he be banned from the site, in entirety. I was thinking about a one-way-IBan with V93 and/or Drmies but that will near-certainly shift his line-of-fire to someone else or give rise to even more time-wasting about whether he did violate the IBan or not. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (+1) to Harry. Seems to be a good-enough middle-road. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Purplebackpack89
Look, it's pretty clear that TRM has a very, very long-term problem with civility, spanning a very long time, a whole bunch of other editors, and with dire consequences. Therefore, we should not talk of withdrawing the sanctions, and instead enforce them vigorously. I would recommend that TRM be blocked for at least a month, and considering his intransigence and how many violations have piled up, perhaps considerablylonger. TRM is not indispensable to this encyclopedia; we've gotten along with him when. he was blocked before and we can do it again. Frankly, we need to stop believing he's indispensable because it's just made his behavior worse. p b  p  14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me also express agreement with Jtrainor's comments below p  b  p  00:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I just left a note for Sandstein, thanking him for closing the ARE thread. I don't know what might come out of this; I do know that the "low-level baited crap" was in TRM's edit summary of his revert. He didn't have to revert me, he didn't have to make it so personal in that summary. As someone said above, with some sort of iBan he might shift his focus to other editors/admins, but for my peace of mind it would certainly be nice not to have to worry about him. As I said at ARE, I don't look at his edits, I don't revert his edits, I don't usually look at his talk page, I stay away from the pages he frequents. I once tried to help him with something and it bit me on the ass, so I'm not doing that again; he does some good work, and there are plenty of other admins with whom he gets along (I suppose) who can do the things he needs doing. So I leave him alone. If he were to extend the same courtesy to me, that'd be nice. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
How long is it going to be before someone at ArbCom runs out of patience with Sandstein's vendetta against TRM? Last time we were here (when an ArbCom member embarassed themselves too) Dweller, Nov 18 331dot, Nov 18 etc, etc, et bloody cetera. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
If I block TRM for standard 48 hours can we skip this exercise and go back to editing? ~ Awilley (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor
I really REALLY hate how established members of the community get a light touch with rules and sanctions just because they're "valuable" to the encyclopedia, while newer accounts can get permanently blocked very quickly for similar conduct. I hope that SOME kind of sanction starts getting enforced regularly, because this whole thing where older editors get to openly flout the rules is an extremely toxic thing for the community. Jtrainor (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re TRM)
We have almost unanimous agreement on two things here:
 * 1) TRM violated his restriction
 * 2) TRM was baited into violating his restriction.

We don't have agreement on whether a sanction for 1 is appropriate in the light of 2.

I think the best way to resolve this would be for everyone who, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, baited any user into violating a restriction imposed on them would automatically get the sanction instead of the user with the sanction - in this case that would be a 48 hour block. That would quickly put an end to much of the sniping around TRM (and others in unrelated disputes). Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
Please be more specific, ; which edits do you consider baiting, and who are you proposing to sanction? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , that's absurd. The content in question was a) redundant, as the quote was already in the article and b) included unsourced information about a living person. Is he now so sensitive that anyone he has been in conflict with cannot fix problems on articles he edits? Furthermore, when I made that edit TRM had already violated his restriction, in the edit summary of the edit I reverted. So, he was baited into violating a restriction by something that occurred after his violation? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to seek sanctions against me, go ahead and drag me to ANI or ARBCOM; but TRM violated his restriction before I ever got involved. Talk pages are for genuine disputes; edit-warring over a quote pasted twice into an article isn't a genuine dispute, it's silliness. I expected the kerfuffle to end with my revert. He chose to revert once more, to declare he hadn't violated his sanction (something he has repudiated now, after a very large number of people told him he was wrong) and to challenge me to prove otherwise. The escalation is on him. Furthermore, he and I both work on main page content. If he is going to react allergically every time I make an edit he doesn't like, even when the edit is justified, that's his problem, not mine. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, TRM, I saw the edit on your talk page, as I have already explained. Had it been an ordinary content dispute, I would have reminded you of your sanction and left the edit alone (as indeed I do with the vast majority of things on your talk page). Given the obvious nature of the redundancy, I reverted your edit as well. That would have been that, had you not challenged my interpretation of your sanction. I'm not interested in seeing you blocked, and never have been: but further interaction between us is inevitable, and all I'm looking for is for it to be civil. If you're acknowledging that the commentary on your talk page, and those edit summaries, were unnecessarily and inappropriately personal, I for one have no further interest in proceedings here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a recognition of anything; indeed, it sounds like a threat. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not terribly relevant here, but the simplest explanation is that the IP address realized their addition was redundant; the quote was already in the article, as was explained in the later removals. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dave
The last part of the edit summary to Drmies was IMHO very disrespectful and should not have been said, That aside Vanamonde's very first edit to that article was to revert TRM - Vanamonde made no edits to that article prior to the revert so IMHO their revert as well their talkpage replies were all tantamount to baiting,

IMHO this should be declined. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No it's not, I find it strange your first and only edit to date was to revert him, If you objected to the content you could've gone to the talkpage or failing that gone to his talkpage and left a message, The moment TRM was in a bit of bother you jumped in and tried getting a reaction or get him to say something he shouldn't before going to his talkpage to essentially finish the job, You baited him sorry. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Harry
Drive-by comment: It's been shown time and time again that definite-duration blocks have little long-term effect on "civility". In my opinion, this is at least partly because each individual outburst is an isolated incident (editors sometimes get frustrated and lose their temper and say things that are unwise; I don't condone this, though I've been guilty of it myself). A one-month block will not make TRM any more or less irritable. My suggestion would be to quickly impose a short block for ech incident to remove TRM from the situation and thus de-escalate it without all the wasted energy on ARCA requests. If no block is issued within 12 hours of a violation and TRM is no longer escalating escalating the dispute, the matter should be considered stale. Rinse and repeat for every violation. This strikes the balance between Something Must Be Done&trade; and turning the whole thing into a carnival while making the point that the community does not condone TRM engaging in the conduct covered by the restriction. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
What's up with an IP adding text that becomes the subject of an edit war and then removing that same text during the edit war?


 * 22:55 An IP adds 670-byte paragraph w/ec: "Controversies"
 * 22:55 removes it "How is that a controversy? also, who cares"
 * 22:56 Drmies removes 25k more "so this is as informative and encyclopedic as a list of tiffs, beefs, rants, and spats"
 * 22:57 restores the 670-byte paragraph "was hugely covered in UK press, and something which is relevant and something our readers would expect to see, perhaps avoid editing things you know absolutely nothing about in the future"
 * 22:59 The same IP removes the text they just added??
 * 23:00 Drmies starts new thread "hugely covered" on TRM's talk page: "Didn't think I would see you use such atrocious language in an edit summary--it sounds a bit Trumpian. But yeah, you sure put me in my place, big guy. Be proud."
 * 23:03 TRM restores again
 * 23:05 removes it "You do realize the damn quote is already in the article?"
 * 23:11 TRM restores again "you do realise that your edits are an adequate demonstration that you are stalking me, that you are following my edits, that you are hunting me down and following evertyhing I do?"
 * 23:25 A different IP removes it "is already in 'personal life'"

How often do you see an editor on both sides of an edit war? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich  03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller
The recent motion re TRM can be found here. Just to remind everyone, the relevant bits are here:

"In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

and the third paragraph is amended to read:

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.

The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:

1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. 2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above."

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.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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



The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * True, a rule of No Consensus For 48 Hours was recently adopted; this is its first test. Clearly, the rule was designed to prevent stalemate among enforcing administrators.  Leading up to the rule's adoption, several enforcement requests had been prevented from being actioned because administrators were stopping by to oppose the action.  However, in this request the administrators agreed that action was necessary, but Sandstein wished to impose a harsher sanction than the standard one.  I do not think this is how the new rule should be used.  Nevertheless, here we are.  I would resolve the escalated request for enforcement with a 48 hour block.We should not depart from the standard outcome in any way here, because I actually think the very best thing is for The Rambling Man to learn that breaches of the remedy will now be enforced.  Enforcing them excessively, or not at all, would be unwise.  I plan, after a period for further comment, to propose a motion for a 48 hour enforcing block.It troubles me that The Rambling Man does not contest they breached the remedy; was it intentional?  Politics should not be played on Wikipedia.  But again, it seems to me that the best response to such behaviour is to stoically apply the very clear rules that were set out late last year.   AGK  &#9632;  18:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As we unanimously agree that a 48 hour block should be imposed, I have asked a clerk to make the block on the committee's behalf. (Decisions made on-wiki are usually implemented by a clerk rather than any single arbitrator, and as I say I wish particularly in this case to avoid any departure from the norm.)   AGK  &#9632;  01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough of this. TRM came out the gate swinging on this one with his initial edit summary and then continued to escalate the situation with his responses. I see no merit to a claim that he was baited into acting like this. I agree with AGK that consistent enforcement is the only way to get a handle on this, because clearly TRM is not willing to self-regulate. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Block for 48 hours and lets move on. Next time the matter comes here, we can move it up to a week, and then a month, etc. As far as I can see that's what the motion was intended to do, and we have to carry that out. I see no wriggle room. And I see no point in changing something that hasn't been tried yet. So, I don't agree with throwing the motion away, or lifting sanctions, or site-banning. SilkTork (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork. Katietalk 23:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I said last year " Hopefully this shows TRM we do have trust in him". That trust was violated. Agreed with SilkTork that a 48 hour block is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Block for 48 hours as a clear violation. While I agree that consistent enforcement of the sanction is necessary, TRM shouldn't be excused for continuing to violate the sanction because it was poorly-enforced in the past. He isn't a dog who doesn't understand English or a toddler who can't fully comprehend the consequences of his actions; he should be able to understand cause and effect here without repeated demonstration. I would also like to emphasize that TRM should not interpret the modified sanction as an agreement that he can reflect on the competence of editors if he's willing to put up with a 48 hour block; continuing to violate the sanction will show it is ineffective and needs to be reconsidered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus at AE and now here that the restriction was violated. Therefore TRM is subject to the enforcement conditions. If the number of violations accumulate to the point where it proves ineffective, a much [more] significant preventative block may, unfortunately, be required. <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 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support a 48 hour block as the first step set out by the previous motion. But after that, any further breaches should be brought here so we can consider escalating sanctions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)