Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 116

Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement (October 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Special:Permalink/820600857

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

 * 2018 ARCA + Motion
 * 2020 ARCA

Whilst I still have some time I figured I'd leave this with you for clarification. Over past couple months I've spoken to several admins re. DS procedures, mostly relating to my work on simplifying/cleaning up community sanction templates (speaking of, gentle query on if you've come to a decision re. my July email yet?), as I didn't want to file a dozen clarification requests. This ARCA stems from a discussion I had with El C, here. Would ask if you could read that section (& possibly see the diffs of change on the linked templates) as it provides relevant context for this question. I understand that the 2020 ARCA asked a very similar question to what I ask now, but given the confusion (ref discussion & incorrect template wording for years) I think it's appropriate to ask for a clear judgement.

In the 2018 ARCA, the Committee passed a motion stating that additional page restrictions apply to enforce 1RR. Namely, this meant that enforcing 1RR would require awareness procedures (incl alerting) to be met. The reasoning by the arbs was a strong feeling of it being inherently unfair to enforce 1RR on articles when the editor may not have been aware of this. Thus, a talk and editnotice alone are no longer sufficient.

In the 2020 ARCA, the Committee was going towards the idea of: the 1RR restriction [does not] require a formal alert in order to be enforced. After close reading of both, I can only interpret this as 1RR by case remedy doesn't require any awareness, but 1RR by DS does?

Is that a correct understanding? If yes, doesn't it also logically follow that 1RR DS enforcement may use the full, broad range of discretionary sanctions enforcement mechanisms, whilst 1RR case remedy can only use increasing-duration blocks, per ArbCom standard procedures?

My next question is, is this two-tier approach to 1RR even logical? In practice, I don't think many admins see 1RR DS as different from 1RR Case Remedy. Both types of 1RR have the same basic awareness (a large talk notice and editnotice), so it's not really accurate to think editors will be more aware of one than the other. I'd also note that it is purely admin discretion on whether an article is "within the conflict area", so 1RR case remedy is also subject to the same level of "discretion", especially for sanctions like ARBPIA and Abortion which have very broad and discretionary scopes. Thus, it seems quite illogical to treat these two 'types' of 1RR as separate. I'd imagine this two-tier approach is also likely confusing & inaccessible to many editors.
 * that I follow, which is the assumption I made in para 3. The final two paragraphs of my statement carry on from that assumption and I think those are still relevant questions to ask here, as I think they're the direct consequences of that interpretation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so, per your comments & the first sentence of GW's comment, what is the status of non-ARBPIA4 1RR case remedies (namely GMO & abortion)? Do those require alerting to enforce, or are they the same as ARBPIA4? Also, re para4, is it correct to assume 1RR case remedies (w/o alert) can only be enforced by blocks? Would non-block enforcement actions relating to 1RR (eg topic bans, other restrictions) require an alert + DS action instead? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
DS... 🤯  - also see above. Atsme Talk 📧 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , could the reason for lengthy AE requests possibly stem from confusing sanctions or possibly even WP:POV creep? Is it possible that an admin might be hesitant to take action against a truly disruptive editor because they are of like minds and/or have established longtime alliances in a particular topic area? NPOV is not an easy task, particularly in controversial articles. nailed it: "There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate." He also made a valid point in pseudoscience that applies equally to almost all controversial topics: The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV. Substitute "scientists" with political party, or gamers. Behavior may be determined to be disruptive simply because it is an opposing view, keeping in mind Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Mainstream media even recognized WP's problem, and it dates back several years as evidenced in this 2008 WaPo article, a 2016 article in The Atlantic, and more recently in The Intercept, and Fox News. Why allow it to continue, and for what benefit? ArbCom has granted individual admins power that ArbCom doesn't even possess as a committee, and I'm speaking of granting irreversible unilateral actions at an admin's sole discretion. We're losing editors and are well on our way to homogenizing topic areas, which is basically what the AE Log represents to me. Maybe NPOV, V, NEWSORG and RECENTISM are what need a closer look - remove the ambiguities, tighten the policies, and enforce them. Just food for thought. Oh, and Vanamonde I want to add that I absolutely agree with your conclusion in this discussion, and along that same line, I highly commend  for his thoughtful considerations in the highly controversial AP topic areas. One last comment, aren't we glad this isn't about infoboxes? Atsme  Talk 📧 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Abortion)
I was not anticipating commenting here, as the topic is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by 's assertion that dealing with disruptive editors from our contentious areas will be less work than managing the DS system that allows uninvolved admins to deal with them. DGG, have you looked at the AELOG lately? Most AE reports are comparable in their length to an ARCA request, and there's far more of them; not to mention the hundreds of yearly actions that individual administrators take outside of AE. ARBCOM has taken upwards of three weeks to handle one clarification request, above. How would it fare if everything currently handled under DS was thrown in its lap? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

1RR requirements and enforcement: Clerk notes

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



1RR requirements and enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The 2020 ARCA was specifically in reference to the 1RR restriction in effect for the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area. In this case it is not a discretionary sanction, but a general prohibition directly authorized by ArbCom, and therefore does not require a formal alert. The 2018 ARCA, on the other hand, was about 1RR as one of the restrictions commonly enacted by administrators as part of the discretionary sanctions system. I know this is confusing, but these two discussions are about two different things. – bradv  🍁  23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To expound on this a bit further: the 1RR prohibition in effect for the ARBPIA is accompanied by a 500/30 restriction. This means that editors who do not have 500 edits and 30 days' tenure can't edit these articles at all, much less edit war on them. This makes the bar for entry to these articles high enough that we can expect people to be familiar with the restrictions in this area, and when disruption occurs it can be dealt with quickly. However, as I said at that ARCA, this rule doesn't necessitate a heavy-handed or punitive approach. A simple note that 1RR applies in this area should be all it takes to prevent a good-faith editor from inadvertently igniting an edit war, and applying 1RR to everybody, without requiring extra formalities for some, helps to keep the collaborative editing process fair and balanced. – bradv  🍁  00:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , regarding the last part of your question and your last comment, the reasons for enacting 1RR as a general prohibition for this topic area are complex, and would require a thorough reading of the related cases and amendment requests to fully understand. The simplest answer I can give is that this system is felt to be simpler and more consistent than discretionary sanctions. As I wrote above, a blanket 1RR and 500/300 restriction, together, provide a level playing field for the entire topic area, without the rules of engagement changing from article to article (as they do in, say, American Politics). While I certainly wouldn't advocate taking this same approach on every contentious topic area, there is considerable value in keeping things simple, and without evidence that this remedy is failing to work as intended I have to assume it is accomplishing its goals. It's also worth noting that the "discretion" involved here in applying these general restrictions is different from discretionary sanctions – in the case of ARBPIA articles the templates and edit notices can be applied by any editor, not just by uninvolved administrators. And the only consideration in adding the templates is that it be part of the topic area, not whether disruption has occurred or is likely to occur. – bradv  🍁  00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ARBGMO does not require an alert for 1RR to apply, but the abortion restriction is a little more complicated (see the ARCA below). As for enforcement, blocks can technically be issued even on a first offense, but as I said previously, this is not and should not be common. Topic bans and restrictions are not enforcement actions, but are additional sanctions (a.k.a. bans), and can only be enacted under DS or as a result of a community discussion, per Banning policy. – bradv  🍁  01:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with bradv that the 2020 ARCA was intended to address specifically the ARBPIA4 1RR, not all 1RR imposed as a result of a case. While I do think it can be reasonable to enforce the 1RR even without an explicit warning in that topic area (particularly because of the additional 500/30 restriction), I also think admins should be sure to apply common sense. As NYB and others said at the ARCA, The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Echoing what Bradv said. The topic-wide 1RR remedies imposed as a result of a case do not require the alerts that AC/DS require, but I'd expect it to be fairly rare that people are sanctioned via those 1RR without at least a quick heads up that 1RR applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have noted above, it remains my strong position that an editor must never be sanctioned for violating a special rule that he or she was not aware of. Beyond that, the lack of clarity being discussed in this thread supports another strong position of mine, which is that the rules surrounding discretionary sanctions have become too complicated and confusing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate. We need a new approach altogether. My idea is that the committee, which is electing to regulate conduct that ordinary admin procedures cannot handle, should do the necessary regulation of conduct rather than instruct the admins to do it a more complicated way. --It will be less work than the repeated dealing with issues such as ddressed by this request and the others requests here at the moment . Since the problems have not been solved, we are presumably doing something wrong--either we as arb com, or we at WP more generally DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the delays are because only the most complicated cases reach us. But it was not my idea that we'd take over all DS & AE requests, because with DS gone, there would be many fewer such requests--they'd be taken care of by normal admin action that didn't require arb com at all.   But I agree that a good enforcement scheme is very difficult to devise--the only aspect I am sure about is that the current one does not remotely qualify, and we need to start over.  I'm not set on my own ideas of how to replace it, though I have several; another one of them  is the rule I apply to myself in almost all disputes, that nobody contribute more than twice to the entire discussion--but this would not be applicable to friendly cooperative work, & I haven't worked out that part yet.   I recognize that almost everyone likely to come to the DR part of WP would find it quite unsettling to their usual way of working, and that would be my main argument for it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (October 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RexxS at 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by RexxS
I apologise for making what appears to be a content-related request, but the behaviour of editors at Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda needs to be restrained, and a simple confirmation should be all that's needed to clarify the underlying issues.

Following a contentious edit war at Ayurveda and a WP:AE discussion, created an RfC at resolve the question of whether the phrase "pseudoscience" should be in the lead. The debate involved over 60 editors, was closed as no-consensus, reviewed, and re-opened for closure by an admin.

Many proponents of Ayurveda have taken the opportunity in that debate to argue that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific and are attempting to have the phrase removed entirely. I believe that the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact. I am therefore seeking a clear confirmation from ArbCom that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions as a pseudoscience (as even that fact has been contested). Having a clear statement of the position will enable a closer to accurately weigh the strengths of the arguments and to reject entirely arguments that clearly contradict Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience.

In the decision at WP:ARBPS, ArbCom asserted the principle I would like a clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is a truism that as far a WiIkipedia is concerned, Ayurveda is either a pseudoscience or it is not. If it is, then editors who breach WP:AC/DS requirements for behaviour can be sanctioned as an AE action. If it is not, then they cannot. You have earlier disputed that ArbCom has designated Ayurveda as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia's view, but that leads to an unsustainable situation. If your logic holds, any other editor can use your ipse dixit argument to claim that they cannot be sanctioned – simply by stating that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience on the grounds that ArbCom has not explicitly said so. Any admin can take AE action against any editor breaching the expected standards of behaviour at Astrology; however the consequence, if your reasoning is accepted, is that anyone editing articles such as Ayurveda has a get-out-of-jail-free card by the simple expedient of denying that the topic is a pseudoscience.
 * We already have prior debate: RfC July 2015 and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 concluding that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, but that is insufficient, it appears, as editors are free to deny the fact as if it were not so.
 * Who then should be the authority that decides that question? At the very least, ArbCom needs to clarify that position. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that ArbCom would be comfortable in addressing the second part of my request for clarification, although you were happy enough to do exactly that for Astrology, which is completely analogous to Ayurveda. The first part is naturally more important, particularly as we are currently under attack at the Talk:Ayurveda page from a concerted campaign, organised through Twitter to distort the consensus away from the recognised scientific viewpoint. An admin has felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step of semi-protecting the talk page temporarily, and I've been playing Whack-a-mole with about 30 newly registered meat/sock-puppets who have repeated the same disruptive edit requests. We need a lot more eyes on the disruption to that page, and it's possible that it is going to require another ArbCom case if the DS prove insufficient. Having a clear statement that Ayurveda is pseudoscience in the same way that Astrology is would go a long way to settling down the disruption there and establishing that Wikipedia's content cannot be held hostage by special interest groups. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * we already have had two RfCs confirming that the community regards Ayurveda as pseudoscience, as well as a catalogue of reliable sources stating the same. See  Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12 and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 . This does not stop the talk page being flooded with SPAs to distort consensus and oppose the appellation. The serious discussions have been made and the consensus is long-standing, but that doesn't stop the disruption.
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/Anuram567. Your idea and mine of "a very small number of editors" differ quite dramatically. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience, but that hasn't stopped the disruption. What is needed is some backbone from ArbCom to make sure that there is not a shadow of doubt about the position of Ayurveda. I'm up to my armpits in alligators over at that article and its talk page and you and a few more admins need to get their backsides over there by the time that the semi-protection wears off the talk page (!) and the disruption starts up again. I'm sick of boatloads of editors with no more than half-a-dozen edits turning up and arguing black is white time and again. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience, but that hasn't stopped the disruption. What is needed is some backbone from ArbCom to make sure that there is not a shadow of doubt about the position of Ayurveda. I'm up to my armpits in alligators over at that article and its talk page and you and a few more admins need to get their backsides over there by the time that the semi-protection wears off the talk page (!) and the disruption starts up again. I'm sick of boatloads of editors with no more than half-a-dozen edits turning up and arguing black is white time and again. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.
 * The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.

If the 2020 committee feels unable to affirm that Ayurveda is included in the principle "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." that the 2006 committee passed 8-0, then so be it: I won't take up any more of your time. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The actions of in starting yet another RfC at Talk:Ayurveda on an issue that was settled two weeks ago are a shining example of the sort of disruption that is being caused in this area following Opindia's campaign to distort Wikipedia's decision-making processes. Regular editors are becoming weary of the time-sink involved in dealing with questions that have been repeatedly asked and answered. As I've been assured that discretionary sanctions are sufficient to deal with the problem, I'll give advance notice that I intend to sanction Petrarchan47 as an AE action if that disruptive RfC is not withdrawn within 24 hours. Let's see whether ds really does do its job. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you can be as sad as you want to be, but the regular editors at Ayurveda are sick of disruption of the sort that you and Opindia are causing. There is no reason whatsoever to attempt to relitigate the "is Ayurveda a pseudoscience" question yet again, when all previous debates have answered that in the affirmative, including one that was closed on 30 August 2020. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)
If the arbitrators feel that explicitly declaring this (or any) topic as pseudoscience would be a content decision, an alternative option would be to allow the discretionary sanctions to be applied to topics that are described as pseudoscience in independent reliable sources even if that status is disputed. In other words saying that the DS applies to subject areas that are or are called pseudoscience so that the application of DS itself does not require a determination of whether it is or is not pseudoscience and the application of DS does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily calling something pseudoscience. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re Shashank5988 I'd forgotten about that case, but discretionary sanctions are indeed authorised for "Complimentary and alternative medicine" and would seem to be a good fit. The Ayurveda article describes it as "an alternative medicine system" and a look at the current talk page suggests that this characterisation is not disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is or was a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. If there is active debate about whether the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. The alternative medicine DS also applies. If the DS isn't working then I don't understand what arbcom saying that the pseudoscience DS applies will change? In terms of content the most the committee could say is that there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience (anything else would be a pronouncement on content that is outside their remit) - what would such a statement change? Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Shashank5988
Arbcom created Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for subjects like this, to avoid the conflict between "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicines". Shashank5988 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I agree that clarification is needed, inasmuch as a principle from a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has been leveraged to assert that various subjects are pseudoscience based on ipse dixit declarations by involved editors. If my recollection serves me, previous Arbcoms have opined about this before (someone could perhaps check so that this Arbcom doesn't have to reinvent the wheel). Perhaps it's addressed in this FOF: WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

RexxS has expressed an understanding that, by my interpretation, would cast a broad net over a range of subjects making them automatically classified as pseudoscience based on (I guess) it being "pointed out in a discussion". I think it's self-evident why such an approach to dispute resolution would be problematic. If not, please let me know and I will explain further.

There are proponents with strong views on both side of the dispute at Ayurveda (note: I'm uninvolved). I would aver that simply because members of one side declare that "the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact" does not make it so. Nor does it obviate the question in dispute: should the subject be described as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article? Arbcom either needs to distance themselves from this reasoning or embrace it, because the ambiguity left by a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has to potential to be weaponized in these disputes. This is not the first article where such a dispute has broken out. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that there is a serious dispute that Ayurveda is subject to discretionary sanctions. WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.". Does anyone disagree that Aruyveda is at least related to pseudoscience and fringe science?


 * However, that's an entirely different issue than your request which says "clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light." In other words, I don't think you are asking if editors on the article are subject to DS, but whether the article can describe the subject as pseudoscience on the basis of the a principle written in a 2006 Arbcom case. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
Subjects like Ayurveda are clearly covered by the decision on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. As about pseudoscience, it was another decision, with good wording: "Theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community".

In my view, no action is required here because the specific area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is already covered by your decision. However, what qualify as pseudoscience in general is a good question. I think it is not enough just to say "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case". One must have at least one solid RS saying that subject X belongs to pseudoscience. Yes, there are such sources in the case of Ayurveda, although the consensus of RS seems to be this is just a traditional medicine. Should we label all projects in the field of traditional medicine funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (a part of National Institutes of Health) as pseudoscience? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad. OK. So, if an admin thinks that certain edits (for example, about a book) might belong to pseudoscience, than it is covered by pseudoscience DS, even if there are zero sources claiming the subject belongs to pseudoscience (and in fact it may belong to mainstream science)? That seems too much, given that admins may not be experts in the corresponding area of science. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad. Thank you! Understood and agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As a side note, this is actually about content. I think too many subjects in WP are labeled "pseudoscience". This is a very serious label, and it must be exceptionally well sourced. Some of these subjects are simply not science, but a traditional medicine or something else, like Aurveda. Others, like Osteopathy aka Osteopathic medicine, implement at least some science-based procedures (one can follow this subsection of page Osteopathy to linked page Osteopathic medicine in the United States to realize this), and even completely mainstream Allopathic medicine was included to template "Alternative medicine". My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise
As far as I'm aware, the answer is that the pseudoscience DS apply regardless, but the scope of DS cannot itself affect how the topic is described in an article. This is because the scope follows the concept of broadly construed - the DS will apply because the question "does this qualify as X?" is itself an X-related topic (otherwise topic-banned editors could wikilawyer endlessly around the edges of their sanction). However, for the same reason, simply being within the scope of X-related DS doesn't actually tell us whether or not the topic is or is not an X. Quoting from WP:BROADLY (I'm the original author of this text, but it's never been challenged in the more than two years since it was written): "Broadly construed" is also used when defining the topic areas affected by discretionary sanctions. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does. For this particular case, while the article does indeed state that Ayurveda or parts thereof are pseudoscience as a matter of fact (and has done so for a long time), that is because of the strength of the sourcing as determined by previous consensus, rather than being directly determined by ArbCom. The specific statement at WP:ARBPS does apply, but I think of it as mostly being a confirmation that using the term "pseudoscience" is in fact permissible under these circumstances. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @MVBW: Traditional medicine and similar practices become pseudoscience when their effectiveness is disproven and they continue to be promoted regardless. Except in the most restrictive definitions, promotion with a disregard for evidence or on the basis of an unscientific belief system will also constitute pseudoscience (non-scientific reasoning is being presented as supporting a scientific claim). With regards to the allopathic medicine article, the template itself may or may not be warranted, but the relationship comes from the origins of the term as a derogatory label used by homeopaths. Sunrise (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I I think the only answer is that all discussions of whether a topic is pseudoscience fall under the pseudoscience DS (that is the entire point of the restrictions, since that is the whole debate that requires DS in that topic area), and that, once the issue has been raised, the entire topic falls under the pseudoscience DS restrictions until there is an affirmative consensus that it is not pseudoscience. As long as there is reasonable doubt that it might be pseudoscience, basically, there is going to be debate of the sort that the DS were specifically created to govern. Obviously the applicability of the DS restrictions in that situation should not itself be taken as an absolute statement that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it is at least under dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Pseudoscience)
The determination of whether or not something is pseudoscience is a content decision that needs to be made by the community, but the determination of whether or not something falls under the scope of an AC/DS is very much a decision that is ultimately ARBCOM's responsibility. Making that decision does not require a ruling on content as such; it just requires ARBCOM to determine whether the problematic behavior that led to the authorization of DS is present in the topic under consideration. As such, this is a decision ARBCOM needs to be willing to make, regardless of whether another DS regime applies. By refusing to decide whether the pseudoscience DS regime covers Ayurveda, ARBCOM creates the possibility of endless wikilawyering with respect to the scope of such regimes, specifically, the argument that because there is not consensus among reliable sources that a topic is related to the name of a DS regime, that the relevant sanctions do not apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to RexxS to articulate what he wants from this request; but my statement was more in response to the many people arguing here that this would constitute an expansion of the DS regime, or that ARBCOM needn't bother answering whether Ayurveda is within scope here because Ayurveda is covered by the alternative medicine DS regime. I think both of those are dangerous lines of argument for the reasons I've given above. I think you (ARBCOM) need to make explicit that Ayurveda is within the scope of these sanctions, and moreover, clarify why you've made that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you arguing that pseudoscience DS do not apply to Ayurveda, contrary to what and others have said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's not the question I asked. I'm asking whether Ayurveda falls within the scope of an ARBCOM authorized discretionary sanctions regime, namely, the pseudoscience DS. The scope of those sanctions is within your purview and no-one else's; refusing to take a position on that is a cop-out. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix, but I am sure that we have a problem, most of which is the direct result of OpIndia declaring war on Wikipedia and sending an army of twitter followers to the page.

An incomplete history of Wikipedia's previous attempts to solve this problem:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Talk:Ayurveda
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 44
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 43
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244


 * Re: "It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?" We are still seeing a large amount of disruption. The protection stopped the flood of new accounts posting the same thing over and over, but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia and is encouraging posts to the Ayurveda talk page by twitter followers who have existing Wikipedia accounts and are already extended confirmed.


 * I am going to expand on what I wrote above ("I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix"): I have yet to see a good argument showing that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix. We need multiple administrators watching over not just Ayurveda but whatever page OpInda attacks next (there is a list at User:PaleoNeonate/Watchlist Ayurveda). We need them to aggressively pageblock editors who were obviously sent by OpInda. I fail to see how any of this needs Arbcom intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Question I occasionally see comments like "X says he scrambled his password, but we can't verify this". In such cases, is it technically possible to ask the users "are you sure" and then reset the password without telling them what the new password is? Or does the software not allow that? If the answer is yes, should we? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
If the community has determined that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, then ArbCom - which does not make content determinations -- must treat it as pseudoscience and enforce against it any sanctions which are routinely used against pseudoscience. ArbCom has absolutely no remit to overturn a community determination about content. ArbCom's personal or collective opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant, since its hands are tied by the community decision.

That being said, ArbCom could exclude Ayurveda from any specific DS simply by changing the wording of the text and excluding Ayurveda from the definition of "pseudoscience" for the purposes of that sanction.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by jps
This strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I am certain that Pseudoscience DS apply. I also think that that job of arbcom is not to adjudicate content. I asked you all some years ago to vacate the nonsense demarcation that a now-disgraced arbitrator penned oh-these-many years ago. The time is now to vacate that. An arbitration decision that says what is or is not pseudoscience is just not a good idea.

If there is a reasonable conflict/discussion about whether arguments about pseudoscience is relevant to a page, the pseudoscience DS are relevant. Obviously, it is relevant to ayurveda. That is as far as arbcom should be moving. I recommend vacating all the attempted demarcation and letting the community get back to business. Yes, that means that DS could be applied to pages relating to psychoanalysis (this is eminently reasonable). After all, WP:FRINGE works pretty well now in comparison to when this case (to which I was a party) was decided.

Love, etc.

jps (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To clarify, it may be that there are enough interested parties to warrant a full case for arbitration. I am not yet convinced of that, but in principle if we get a lot of BJP activists coming in and arguing for more kid-gloved treatment of ayurveda or vedic astrology or hindu creationism, well maybe a case. But right now I think we have things under control as long as y'all are willing to say that Psuedoscience DS apply where the people here are claiming they apply. jps (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in case you need a clearer exhortation, it's this: REMOVE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BOTH ASTROLOGY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS FROM THIS ARBCOM CASE'S RULINGS. This isn't because I disagree with those rulings (though, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is something with which I disagree), it is simply because arbcom doesn't make these kinds of determinations any more. jps (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
It is troubling that discretionary sanctions are still in force for a case that is 14 years old. Shouldn't these sanctions have an automatic sunset? The point of sanctions is to solve a problem. Once the problem is solved we should default to our usual rules, which should be sufficient. If a set of sanctions is in force for (to pick an arbitrary term) three years, and the problem still isn't solved, then it's probably time to have a another case to figure out why the problem hasn't been solved, and maybe change the sanctions to something stronger. If an area like American politics is a source of perpetual problems, then we should write that into our community rules and make whatever measures are needed permanent. Jehochman Talk 10:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
My views align closer to relative to not knowing what vitamins I should take, if any. As for the content and conduct issues, there appears to be some agreement that ArbCom does not exist to adjudicate article content; count me as a +1. On the other hand, my perspective about DS is that, in practice for the most part, they are neither resolutions nor binding solutions to resolve conduct issues because you cannot bind what is malleable or what was left unresolved. Isn't that why we're here now? DS obliquely, if not directly in some instances, regulate content because they create unintentional hurdles in an environment that is ripe for WP:POV creep, perceived or otherwise. AE grants admins super-authority by allowing them to impose irreversible sanctions against editors in a unilateral action at their sole discretion. In essence, ArbCom is throwing the ball back into the court of irreconcilable differences allowing a single admin to grab the ball and run to the goalpost of their choice (which creates an in the eyes of the beholder decision-making process) and they can do so with no concern of an interception or penalty flag. Most of us try to AGF but as a realist, I'm not quite convinced that decisions based on sole discretion are completely void of prejudice or bias - especially when it involves issues that already failed other DR processes. Give me a choice between sole discretion vs a panel of independent thinkers, and I'll choose the latter. Bottomline, my perception of ArbCom's responsibility is to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved. . Editors who are elected to serve on ArbCom possess certain qualities that have garnered the community's trust, in part because they have demonstrated sound judgment, fairness and neutrality. There is also the thought that several heads are better than one because it adds an element of diversity. Some of the issues that are perceived to be disruption in highly controversial topic areas are "ended" (not always resolved) by a single admin making a judgment call, and in those cases, the potential for such decisions to be unknowingly influenced by POV or prejudice against an editor is highly plausible. The latter is why the community elected a panel - ArbCom - to handle the difficult cases. Somewhere beyond that is the reason we have so many essays. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - not trying to be contrare, but I am curious...isn't John Hopkins Medicine a RS? They make no reference to ayurveda as a pseudoscience, rather they refer to it as "a complementary therapy in combination with standard, conventional medical care." Also, EPMA Journal, which has an 4.9 IF and a Scopus CiteScore of 7.7 in 2019, states: "This review article concludes that traditional knowledge systems like Ayurveda and modern scientific evidence-based medicine should be integrated." And there's also Science Direct (Elsevier) which lists multiple books and chapters about "ayuverdic medicine", and this article, (https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816347-4.00009-X), Chapter 9 - Potential Treatment Strategies of Dementia With Ayurvedic Medicines, and on and on. I know Science Direct is a RS, and they don't exactly support the POV that it's "pseudoscience". Atsme  Talk 📧 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding Who Global Report On Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019, pg 189, which states: Traditional Medicine (TM)  and  Complementary  and  Alternative  Medicine  (CAM):“Traditional  medicine”  is a comprehensive term used to refer to both various forms of indigenous medicine and to TM systems such  as  traditional  Chinese  medicine,  Indian  ayurveda,  and  Arabic  unani  medicine. Atsme  Talk 📧 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

 * The community can't really decide if a topic fits under a DS. They can make content decisions, but not this determination. That's made by uninvolved admins by an authority that descends from ArbCom.
 * If an abuse of admin discretion was suggested at ARCA, some criteria to determine whether the article was in scope would probably apply (even if only implicit; obviously it would be inappropriate to apply PSDS to Banana). That would be as much of a content decision as deciding whether Ayurveda fits the bill under the psuedoscience DS.
 * This particular case is probably resolved by Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. It does not necessarily fix the underlying issue. Arbs have suggested the Acupuncture case as being relevant to Ayurveda and thus resolving this issue, which means they consider Ayurveda as "Complementary and Alternative Medicine". According to our articles, "Alternative Medicine" is a subtype of pseudoscience (indeed, it is by definition). In other words, that determination effectively states that Ayurveda is a psuedoscience in a roundabout way, which is apparently what the Committee wants to avoid in this case.

It's not a content decision to decide whether something fits the scope. Ayurveda obviously fits the scope, we all know that here, so that part isn't exceptional. What is exceptional is that nobody wants to say it.

Thus, I think the real lesson here is to create non-inflammatory scopes for a DS. Calling something a "psuedoscience", even under the language of WP:BROADLY, is perceived as inflammatory I guess, which is probably why Arbs don't want to say it. But nobody would hesitate clarifying NRA falls under "organizations associated with [gun control]". PSDS is probably the only active DS with a perceived inflammatory scope. But, as above, AC ultimately still has to decide if an article fits within the scope of a DS, because it's the only body that can, and it has to make this decision (even implicitly) every time it reviews an ARCA for scope overreach. Shying away from that for PSDS doesn't seem like a good idea. Easy way out seems to be a comment along the lines of NYB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Pseudoscience)
Is aurveda unambiguously pseudoscience? Is the study of ayurveda permeated by pseudoscience? Are these the same thing? That would be an ecumenical matter, but that is not the question here. ArbCom would not mandate that a thing is or is not pseudoscience, they would mandate whether it falls into the pseudoscience DS. Which IMO it does, per WP:BROADLY, because there is, at the very least, solid support in RS for the idea that it is.

There appears to be consensus that the term pseudoscience can be included in the lead, as it is well sourced and in line with our approach to other pseudomedical modalities (as shorthand, Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine or SCAM). The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter, a side effect of blowback from recent statements by the Indian medical Association characterising people practising medicine based solely on study of folkways as quacks. This is complicated by the prevalence of ayurveda in India, whose pluralistic and multitheistic culture leads to an acceptance of quasi-religious beliefs as inherently valid. This lack of judgmentalism - a core Indian value - means that quasi-religions alternatives-to-medicine are accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine, including by the government via its Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH).

Per 's points below, when the original DS were passed on homeopathy in 2006, it was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy would not happen today, we would simply topic ban Dana Ullman.

The status of aurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. Because it uses pharmacologically active doses it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives an ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations - "does this herb contain molecules that may have a curative property" - is called pharmacognosy, ayurveda starts from the incorrect premise that some herb is always a cure and that nothing else is necessary.

The DS are there to manage behavioural issues brought on by asymmetric motivation and the collision of quasi-religious belief with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That is present here. It needs the provisions of DS now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) [edited for brevity]

Statement by Petrarchan47
There is justification for a case here, but not because some Indians are pestering editors at Ayurveda with spurious complaints. A potential case should look at the behaviour of editors who have been misrepresenting sources, rejecting needed corrections, and defending the unsupported "Ayurveda (AY) is pseudoscience (PS)" claim as sacrosanct. Editors and Admins have violated WP:V and WP:NPOV to create the article that is causing so much distress. The Hindu Post has an article calling out the bias on this page, it's worth a look. The laughable idea being floated is that some unidentified tweet is responsible for the flood of criticism, as if to say critiques have no merit. Today in this edit, removed recent corrections to the page, referring to them as "bowing to the Twitter mob", and restored false claims, including a wildly inaccurate claim to first paragraph of the Lede, reinserting: The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as "quacks". Google revealed no consensus for "Ayurveda is pseudoscience", but rather justified removing the label. There is no mention of PS in:Merriam Webster, Brittanica, online dictionary, WebMD, John's Hopkins, NIH, or Cancer.gov Wikipedia is the only major source calling AY PS in unqualified terms. The WP community cannot override the scientific community using shoddy, outdated sources, misrepresenting sources, and WP:SYNTH: A look at the article LEDE: The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific Sources:
 * Psych Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry, 2013 - 1 mention of AY found: "These pseudoscience theories may...[such as Ayurveda] confuse metaphysical with empirical claims"
 * "Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India" (2012) book by Johannes Quack; paywalled, no quotation given

BODY 1) Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts. Source: 2) Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific". Source: 3) Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized. Sources:  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  23:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Psych
 * 2009 transcript of talk, however Manohar says (Wiki attacks Ayurveda and Vaidya Rammanohar - His Rejoinder) he was "misquoted", and adds that Ayurveda "seems to have been very recently edited with some malicious intent". A look at April's Lede compared with today's Lede gives credence to this claim. Removed the following day*
 * Psych
 * Sujatha, 2011 "Such discourses may even be termed as pseudosciences"
 * Manohar, 2013 "Already Ayurveda has been characterized as “pseudoscience” by Beall in the wake of the sudden explosion of spurious publishers and publications dealing with research in Ayurveda. Although Beall is obviously biased against Ayurveda..."
 * Snake oil science: the truth about complementary and alternative medicine (2007) "nothing remotely similar to the energies of vata, pitta, and kasha has ever been documented in biology..."
 * - Respectfully, while WP may have once been 'just an encyclopedia', it now serves as the ultimate purveyor of facts for searches on Google, Siri and Alexa, who use the first few sentences of WP pages to answer queries about any subject. Thousands of Indians are rightfully upset since the recent addition of false, unsupported and disparaging material to the Lede paragraph shows up globally for all searches of "Ayurveda". There is a 2 week old Change.org petition with 10K signatures ("We are against wikipedia's statement which says ayurveda is pseudo scientific").
 * My attempts to correct one falsehood have been reverted by Guy M and Guy C
 * You might take a moment to review the sources used to support the "pseudoscience" claim. They are mere mentions by random authors, no substantive discussion nor any authoritative source is offered, because none exist AFAIK. The label was created by WP by ignoring basic policy. Only Arbs can curtail POV pushing admins/editors.
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have opened a RfC to discuss whether sourcing supports the pseudoscience label at Ayurveda. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have shown that the IMA is being misquoted by editors and admins, yet no one has jumped to apply DS. This ARCA clearly shows there are questions within the community about the categorization of Ayurveda. My review of the sources used to support this contentious claim show me that there is absolutely no authoritative source, nor mix of them, that qualifies. I have listed the sources in the RfC with the cited material, and if the community disagrees with me, fine. To call my good faith efforts "disruption", and group me in with past, unrelated disruption, and threaten me for doing the work of a good faith editor is just sad. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8"> petrarchan47 คุ  ก </b> 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil
It seems to me that arbitrations are a means to support that admins in highly contentious situations, that is, in situations which they cannot deal with on their own. So we have arbitration, and then perhaps a discretionary sanction so that the admins have something behind her or him when things get rough. Arbitration has declared some subject areas pseudoscience, those "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If arbitration was out of step with the "don't involve themselves in content disputes" well it's too late. Whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, "characteristically fail[s] to adhere to scientific standards and methods" or is fringe to the mainstream science is not disputed by numerous sources. Arbs don't have to agree to anything here except to support something they in the past have already agreed on. I don't see the difficulty.

And we don't have to compare Ayurveda to anything. As an alternative medicine system it is thousands of years old so we can expect there to be a huge divide between those who practice or support Ayurveda and modern medicine. I would disagree that the trajectory of Ayurveda is similar to homeopathy. Ayurveda has been around for a very long time, predates organized religion, and physicians are still being trained; my suspicion is that it will be around for a lot longer. None of that matters, though. As long as Wikipedia has both taken the mainstream scientific view and Ayurveda fits that view, then, that's what we deal with in articles. If an admin needs a clarification in a situation that is beyond one person to handle what's the sticking point. (And as aside. I think at times we use pseudoscience and fringe as weapons. Fringe simply means something is not in the mainstream. Yet (possibly). Most if not all research begins as fringe and as non-compliant with our MEDRS articles.) Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gandydancer
I've known for years that the Indian medicine articles were hopelessly biased and I've also known for years to not even bother to make any attempt to remove what I see as the blatant bias. India does have doctors and nurses well-trained in western medicine but many of them leave the country because they can earn more money elsewhere and those that don't leave almost invariably choose to practice in the large cities. So that leaves most Indians with Indian medicine as their only choice. So what that comes down to is that we have our encyclopedia saying that most of the people in India are being treated by quacks using pseudoscience. The Indian parliament is not calling their practitioners of Indian medicine quacks. So either they are so ill-informed that they can't understand that only western medicine is real medicine or they just don't care about their own people. I believe that it is racist to call a good number of the Indian people either stupid or uncaring or both. Knowing what I was getting into, but never the less I tried awhile ago to change some wording that I felt was racist in one of the Indian medicine articles and eventually had to give up with many wasted words and a fair amount of wasted time. Quoting Petrarchan above, I was met with the same argument: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as 'quacks'." IMO both Petrarchan's and Littleolve oil's posts are both spot on. Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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



Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think the committee has to take the position that any particular subject is pseudoscience for DS from that case to be applied (that the status is disputed is rather the point). : others have noted that the Acupuncture DS could also be applied: would that solve the immediate issue? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any article where there is significant dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience is covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions: the article already carries the PS DS heading, and I don't think that loophole would carry very far. It seems the clarification request goes further in asking the committee to declare that not only does the DS apply, but also to classify the article subject "as a pseudoscience" (making a content determination) so that certain principles of the Pseudoscience case can be applied more directly - am I reading that right ? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of significant editorial disputes as to whether the topic is pseudoscience is sufficient for that topic to be covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. In this context, I've withdrawn my question as to whether the Acupuncture DS could be substituted. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get a pronouncement from the 2020 committee that the topic is pseudoscience, despite what the 2006 committee might have said about astrology. The committee might be able to certify that there is community consensus that a preponderance of reliable sources indicate the topic to be pseudoscience and accordingly there is a consensus for it to be be described as such in the article, but I don't really think that kind of thing requires the committee, it can be done at a noticeboard or the article talk page. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the topic would be covered by that principle to the extent that it "is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". It's not the committee that needs to make that determination, it's the editing community through inclusion of sources and community discussions (and from what you've outlined here, that determination has already been made). In any case: any statement made here by the committee is unlikely to affect the behaviour of the inexperienced editors which have been coming to the article/talk page. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional context. The article talk page is semi-protected until 12 Sept 2020, and a page was created for non-confirmed users to post. Discretionary sanctions are in place and enforcement paths are available. If the belief is that the community is unable to handle the issue administratively, it is probably better to file a full case that would allow for more and wider viewpoints (however my above comment re: efficacy applies). Since the edits of concern are mainly from new and newer editors, the wider issue (including the more recent developments covered in the ANI thread) could be heard at WP:AN so other interventions (general sanctions, higher levels of protection, etc.) may be considered by the community before asking the committee to intervene. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion of whether or not a given field or phenomenon is a pseudoscience should fall within the discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of a serious discussion that's overtly focused on whether something is a pseudoscience or not, not of a mental reservation that might be present in one admin's head. We just need to avoid the circularity of needing to know the outcome of a discussion of how we categorize something before we can define the rules of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unwilling to expand the scope of pseudoscience especially in a situation where there seems to be some cultural bias--it his treated in some geographies as a science with long historical roots and academic underpinnings. Arb com had no business declaring what fields are pseudoscience, or restricting or prescribing the content edited in these or any other fields. (with the exception of such things as blp) Nor does it have any need to deal with ordinary disruptive editing--ordinary admin remedies are sufficient for that. What arbcom does have the right and responsibility of doing is declaring that some fields are so exceptionally disruptive that arb enforcement sticky remedies are needed. The original basis for DS remedies was that in some such fields admins would revert each other, creating untenable situations unless the abbility to do so were restrained.  The introduction of DS was successful, and did pretty much put a stop to that sort of privileged disruption. There may be some fields where this is still necessary--I might for example agree thaat American Politics is one of them,  at least for the next few months, and some ethnic conflicts, perhaps even indefinitely. It could conceivably be argued that  some forms of pseudoscience such as homeopathy are also. though I have doubts here--it has been so thoughly refuted. . I think the addition of any specific pseudoscience or other field to the list  should should be discouraged unless it is proven that ordinary admin methhods have failed to deal with disruption.  Ordinary arb methods have lately been dealing quite effectively with disruption,  as can be seen by the many fewer cases that need to come to arb com. In my view, adding this field to the list unnecessary; its advocates are a very small number of editors who can be dealt with by the ordinary admin remedies.  DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a very large number of probable puppets, and ordinary sanctions, not DS, are quite enough to deal with that. DS had a possible role when there are persistent editorss getting repeatedly blocked; it adds nothing to the ordinary admin remedies in cases such as you mention.  It does not show a need to arb com.   DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did now look at the talk page. What do you propose to do under DS that you would be unable to do now.?  DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking further since I wrote my original comment, I have strenthened my view on DS--I would never support using them even in AP, where they have served to discourage open discussion and influence POV,.  DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal view of whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience is irrelevant here. I'm responding as an arb, and as an arb I have no opinion about content. To the extent the original pseudoscience RFA was an attempt by arb com to give an opinion on content it was a erroneous decision, and we should not repeat their error. To the extent it dealt with conduct of various editors, it was a good decision.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Vanamonde, for your repeated question, because is has helped me make my positions clearer.  it is not within the scope of any arbitrator to decide the nature of a medical procedure. It is not for us to decide this, and it was not correctly within our scope to make any similar decision we made in the past. If the previous cases implied it was, or required us to decide, they were wrong--it is outside our area. Based on the discussion here, a few other arbs seem to  also refuse to take a stand on the matter. In particular your questions have helped me settle my position on the more general question of DS: I would abolish them, and then  there would be no more such questions. among other merits of terminating the procedure, is that it leads to inappropriate requests for us to involve ourself in deciding content. What  is  within the scope of arb com is to end the concept of DS, and the only reason I do not now propose it by motion is that I do not think it would have a majority yet.  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't decide what vitamins to take, so I'm in absolutely no position to decide if something is or isn't pseudoscience. Those are discussions that need to take place in a community process per NYB. Katietalk 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave the decisions of whether something is pseudoscience up to the editing community when possible. However, it seems like the discretionary sanctions on alternative medicine are applicable here, so is this now a solved problem? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GW--what makes it impossible for the editing community to deal with the question? It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I thought that might be the problem, but wouldn't it be solved by blocking people making disruptive repetitive postings, especially by using the new facility for blocking from a particular page. Any admin can do that as a normal admin action--it doesn't take DS. The only advantage of DS would be if these blocks were being reversed by other admins. Is that the case? What else do you suggest that needs DS? Or is it just meant to be a way of giving a very strong warning?  DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused which of these comments are directed at me—please feel free to move this reply if I've incorrectly placed it. I don't personally believe that the editing community is unable to determine whether this subject is pseudoscience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * so, looking at your last note, you do not expect any practical effect from this? They why bother? The decision to call is pseudoscience is an editorial decision and can be done regardless of what arbcom thinks about it.. (fwiw, as I thought I had made clear, I disagree with labelling topics as pseudoscience at least in the overly heavy-handed way it is currently used for this topic, and if the arb com decision is used as an excuse to justify it, we need   to revise most of the 2006  decision. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "why bother". Why bother making a clarification request? Presumably because RexxS didn't know if ArbCom was willing to answer one-off requests as to whether a topic is covered by a specific DS, which is understandable given that there is some general disagreement around whether we should. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the article should refer to Ayurveda as pseudoscience is entirely the decision of the editing community, a decision which should be based entirely upon reliable sources and not past ArbCom statements. Discussions about such language can be moderated under the DS rules, and implemented at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Beyond that, we have the "broadly construed" language to cover edge cases, as well as the DS authorized for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" for when "Pseudoscience" isn't the right description. – bradv  🍁  21:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand your comment. What specifically are you asserting ArbCom is obliged to do? The only relevant remedies that I know of are listed at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture, and none of them mandate anything. They just authorize discretionary sanctions, which still have to be enacted by an uninvolved admin. – bradv  🍁  23:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are clearly INVOLVED with respect to the Ayurveda article, having made your opinion on the substance of the dispute abundantly clear. Please leave arbitration enforcement to another administrator. – bradv  🍁  18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV..
 * As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm indenting this, because it's intended as a reply to and   as my personal view only, to indicate my view of  the error of those who feel obliged to use WP to tell people what to do, though in that sense it is relevant to the question of whether WP should enforce a POV.  It's not really a statement by an arb as an arb, but I don't know where else to put it. A key factor in medical results is the trust the patient has in the physician, and this can be similar in all forms of medicine, rational, or irrational. A patient who thinks the physician understands them and is really trying to help will usually feel better, if only because so many conditions are self--limiting. A patient who distrusts the healer will probably not take the prescribed treatment, whether it's a rational or irrational prescription. The placebo effect is real, and, astoundingly, even if the patient knows it's a  placebo. Many of the conditions modern medicine purports to treat it actually has no proven effective treatment for;  the most common conclusion  in Cochrane, if you actually read it carefully instead of use it as a magic word,  is that the evidence isn't really good enough. ( I pretend to be rational, but I have for many years taken drugs for conditions I know could be better treated by exercise, because I really hate exercise; I finally did start to exercise as well based essentially on the charisma of my very sports-minded cardiologist. ) CAM is in basically a fad, but it is also in some sense a rational response to uncertainty-though I note that one oft he studies quoted was for depression, notoriously one of the conditions for which no one medical treatment can be shown effective.  And of course almost anything sensible or not, can appear in the peer-reviewed literature-, and any one who accepts it without knowing how to analyze it can not be trusted to instruct others.
 * A much better case for WP adopting a POV can be had with climate change. This is much closer than medicine to being an exact science. But again, any particular aspect in the science can have errors, and our entire view of things could be changed completely by any of a number of catastrophes. Pre COVID, I would also have said that this might be a case where we had to tell people what they should do, because the alternative was disaster--unlike medicine, individual choices could harm the entire word irreparably. We now know this is also true about public health, tho in my opinion the public health establishment forfeited much of its claim to credibility back when it advised people that gloves were more important than effective masks, because it knew there were insufficient masks, and it did not dare tell the actual truth, which was that all the available individual measures were close to useless.  We need a certain amount of skepticism, because most other people who have every lived, thought that they too knew what the correct POV about the world was, and almost all of them we would almost  all agree  been proven wrong.
 * All we can do is give people the available data, and the information and resources to judge its credibility. We can say what people in various positions who ought to be well-informed think. We can not judge from their standing in the world whether what they think is correct.  And we need a certain amount of modesty, because no matter how accurately and effectively we give people the information they need, they in practice on both public and personal issues are not going to act on it. (e.g. to go to a field where arb com has even less place, probably close to 100% of the people in the US know that the current president is a deliberate liar, and knowing that isn't going to affect how they vote in the election) We take ourselves too seriously. We're just an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's too much here to discuss in this context, and perhaps we should take it off-line. But I agree that the way tolerance is extended to CAM remedies and supplements was a political decision based on no scientific principle whatsoever. As for placebos, --you are correct I'm going by tertiary sources & should do what I say anyone with the background to understand them should do,  which is to read critically the actual research.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . 1/. I've said myself, just above, that much of contemporary medicine as practiced is not actually scientific.  (My personal bias is to prefer it nonetheless, because it alone of the systems being discussed has the potential to be so, and sometimes is) 2/That WP is mistakenly taken as a reliable source  by most of the world is unfortunate. It casts on us a burden that we are by our basic mode of operation unable to fulfill. Unfortunately, all we can do about it is explain, and give disclaimers, and try in a reasonable way to not be grossly inaccurate,  or at least give a range of sources. We do remain the only popularly accessed information source which at least tries to give references, and that part of our original mission remains valuable. (despite the perennial attempts at WP:RS to compromise  honesty  by permitting only those sources the majority there    agree with.)   I came here as an academic librarian, trying to revise things to make them more accurate, and replace bad references with good. . After a year or two,  I realized that  this was too difficult in our environment, and have focussed since on removing the worst of the garbage, and avoiding fields where people believe so strongly in the veracity of their favorite cult that dealing with it would mean too much fighting. As I  did not come here convinced I could enlighten the world on what is  the truth, I'm not horrified when we fail at it.    DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm late tot he party here, but i have been following this. On the question of whether DS applies here, I would say yes, either from the Pseudoscience case or the alternative medicine case. I can't see the committee making the editorial decision as to which topics actually are pseudoscience though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Portals (October 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BD2412 at 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification BrownHairedGirl
 * diff of notification Northamerica1000


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals
 * Lift the prohibition entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals
 * Lift the interaction ban entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.

Statement by BD2412
I write to request the removal or limitation of restrictions currently imposed on User:BrownHairedGirl. Per the decision in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship, and it is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion. I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA.

Additional comment: I don't understand the point of allowing these prohibitions to be appealed in six months if they are going to remain in place after perfect behavior with respect to these areas for eight months. What, exactly, would BHG need to have done to merit the removal of these prohibitions after six months? BD2412 T 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl
Thanks to BD2412 for making this request. I have absolutely no desire or intention to get involved in portals again, or to resume interaction with NA1K. However, I would like the restrictions to be lifted because:


 * 1) It would be unhelpful for everyone if I was banned from answering questions which arise at RFA
 * 2) Most of my editing this year has been on categories, and most of those category pages include links to portals. The ban leaves me in the perverse situation that if anyone asks me a non-contentious question about links which I have created to portals, then I am unable to reply even if the matter if solely technical.

For my own peace-of-mind, I intend to continue to observe the self-denying ordinance which I posted on 24 January, and also to avoid contact with NA1K. However, it would be helpful to at least be able to reply to comments at RFA, and preferably to also at least have the option of making a brief factual reply to NA1K if our paths cross at a discussion venue such as CFD, where I am a regular participant. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC) That is all I want to say, but the restrictions prevent me saying that. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * writes of intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG. The last encounter I recall with SMcCandlish was at ANI in March 2019: I had banned SMcC from my talk in response to their aggression, then found SMcC editing other pages of mine from which they were clearly excluded.  SMcCandlish then made a wholly bogus allegation that I had harassed him by email. The unpleasantness was indeed intense, but it was entirely from SMC. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * when RFA nomination was suggested, I considered how to handle any such issues raised in the RFA. My response will be something like this: "I stand by my assessments of portals and of NA1K's role therein, and I also reaffirm my commitment not to discuss them further".
 * My prev comment was a reply to NA1K, so I included a ping as a matter of courtesy. I am sorry the ping was unwelcome, but the response is excessive. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to disengage here, so I will simply note: WP:BANEX explicitly includes "appealing the ban". -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * this is Kafkaesque. I have absolutely no intent or desire to hurt or to re-open old issues.
 * Wrt NA1K, in response to a concern, I made no comment on substance. I did not reiterate my views; I simply stated that a) my views have not changed, and b) I will not comment further.  The claim that my remarks were designed to be hurtful is the polar opposite of my intent.  Yet that very self-denial is being weaponised against me.
 * SMcCandlish made a criticism of me which appeared to refer to a bogus allegation of harassment that was dismissed by the community at ANI. If any arbitrator wants the evidence, I will email it. Please do not pass judgement without seeing the evidence that in fact I was repeatedly harassed by SMcC, and please do not accuse me of malice for defending myself against falsehood. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Northamerica1000
In the interest of fairness relative to an RfA, I find myself in general agreement with 's statement below in the "Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion" section, "I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time".

I sure hope an RfA does not become all about me, for some reason or another. If the temporary restrictions are permitted, rather than stating my user name repeatedly throughout an RfA, the phrase "the user" could be used instead. Otherwise, it could come across to casual readers and page skimmers as a regurgitation of more ranting against NA1K (me), preserved in the RfA archives for all time. North America1000 22:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The user has now essentially already violated the one-way interaction ban, right here on this page (diff), by pinging me to their comment and speaking directly to me. To be very frank, I do not care to hear anymore about how the user stands by their assessments of portals and their subjective opinions of my supposed "role". The user's vocal assessments and actions ultimately ended up getting them interaction banned, topic banned and desysopped. It was wholly unnecessary to ping me here, because the exact same message could have been conveyed without the ping, and in my opinion, the pinging does not fall within the purview of WP:BANEX. I understand that the user is trying to convey what they would say at an RfA, but in my view, they have done so in a manner here that is in violation of the one-way interaction ban. North America1000 00:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"BrownHairedGirl is indefinitely restricted from interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed in six months."
 * The user has continued violating the one-way interaction ban, now stating their personal, subjective opinion about my post directly above (diff), characterizing it as "excessive". This is clearly outside of the purview of WP:BANEX. The terms of the one-way interaction ban are crystal clear,
 * but the user seems unwilling or unable to comply with them. In the process of commenting and editorializing in a negative manner about my post, the user is attempting to label my post and opinion as inferior. In the process of appealing the interaction ban here, the user is already engaging in similar tactics that caused them to be one-way interaction banned in the first place. North America1000 01:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, if my name comes up at a future RfA, it is my sincere hope that the user keeps their word here, where the user stated regarding portals and regarding my existence on Wikipedia that they have made a "commitment not to discuss them further" and that it "is all I want to say, but the restrictions prevent me saying that." (diff).


 * If not, these ammendments come across as a convenient and quaint means of providing license for the user to potentially freely engage in another reputation-smearing shitfest at RfA against my character and good name. It was my view when the user previously actively engaged in their attacks that they received some sort of personal catharsis in doing so, which then provided positive reinforcement for the user to continue ad infinitum, until the user was eventually appropriately halted by Arbcom. It went on for months.


 * So, if an RfA becomes personalized against my character anyway, I would then likely have to at least comment in the General comments section that per the Portal arbitration case's FoF #11, "No compelling evidence was presented to indicate misconduct, abuse of admin tools, or persistent abuse of Wikipedia policies on the part of Northamerica1000". I can copy it and keep it ready for use as a canned reply at RfA if the harassment continues there. It is of course my hope that I would not be essentially forced to do so to protect my reputation and good name in this manner, but there you have it. Otherwise, the double jeopardy retrial of NA1K can continue into perpetuity, devolving Wikipedia's arbitration processes into an online kangaroo court of subjectivity. Then I can spend more time defending myself against yet more personal attacks, rather than spending my time performing functional tasks. North America1000 05:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , and for members of the Arbitration committee to further consider: In addition to the diffs provided by below, see also the following:
 * 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff, edit summary "GET LOST":
 * "The pair of you have engaged in a series of mischievous attempts at specious argument"
 * "Your utterly dishonest attempts to claim that WP:NCM guides the use of "compositions" rather than "musical compositions". It says no such thing. That is pure fabrication on your part."
 * "Your blatantly false assertions that..."
 * "Now get the hell off my talk page, and clean up your act while there is still time."
 * "(And for clarity, this is my talk page, so I get the last word here. Do NOT reply to this here)."
 * 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff. The user reverted a post in reply to the concerns they stated above, erasing it, rather than replying to it. The post that was erased contained content in disagreement about how they were being characterized.
 * 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff – The user then starts a thread on the talk page of the user who they reverted, with the heading title "Get lost".
 * 25 March 2020 (UTC) – diff – edit summary "Long comment on the disruptive antics of Gerda Arendt and Francis Schonken, and Schonken's WP:GAMEing and harassment."
 * "The substantive position of the pair of them is a series of specious arguments thrown out in a blatant FUD exercise to support their WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance
 * "To top it all, Francis has been using his barrage of falsehoods as a tool in his attempts to bully me into withdrawing the nomination"
 * "The only time sink here is Francis's strategy of disrupting consensus formation by barrages of FUD and falsehood. Creating a shitstorm and then claiming that the said self-started shitstorm is a time-sink is a WP:GAMEing strategy, and Francis's contempt for truth extends even to claiming in his post...
 * "This pair of truth-averse, tag-teaming bullies...
 * – The user posts attacking statements on their talk page about other users, and then engages in muzzling other users from defending themselves by telling them to stay off their talk page when they voice concerns about how they are being characterized, then leaving their negative judgments in place on the page, essentially acting as judge, jury and executioner, all the while smearing reputations in their prose and edit summaries. North America1000 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Per your stricken comment below, note that there is only a one-way interaction ban in place (link). I am under no interaction restrictions. North America1000 11:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated in your comment, "But mostly because there is evidence there's no longer a need for the sanctions", which suggests at least a possibility that you have not looked into the diffs I have provided above, along with those presented by in their section of the discussion. After the Portals arbitration case was closed, the user continued to engage in the same types of behaviors against other editors, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of personal attacks, scolding and negative declarations against others. Of course, I leave it up to others to decide for themselves upon the severity of the user's actions relative to this discussion. The evidence provided comes across to me that there is a need for the one-way interaction ban to continue after the RfA is over, because the same behaviors continued after the Portals arbitration case, just against other users than myself. In my view, this demonstrates at least a potential that the user could possibly eventually go back to their old ways of making more personal attacks against me, in part because it is my belief that the user enjoyed doing so. North America1000 16:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk
The verdict of the ArbCom case back in January was that BHG is allowed to run at RfA at any time. That implies she should get a clear and unobstructed run at it. Since she's almost certainly going to be asked questions about portals and NA1K, preventing her from answering those questions would hobble the RfA attempt and make a cruel joke of ArbCom's determination that she's allowed to run. I think all bans should be lifted completely- failing that, they should be lifted temporarily for the RfA. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A few of the recent comments are starting to sound dangerously like a demand that BHG change her opinions, not just her behaviour. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dreamy Jazz
As noted below, I have recused from clerking as I am one of the nominators. I think that, personally, the restrictions should at least be suspended for the RfA. I also think any RfA for a user with active restrictions will have questions from voters about said restrictions. If the RfA candidate was not able to answer such questions, it would be unfair for the candidate as good faith questions left unanswered for a long while are often frowned upon at RfA (I understand that if the restrictions are properly and clearly noted in the RfA, voters should see why the question could not be answered, but it cannot be taken for granted that voters will see such a note). By suspending the restrictions for the RfA, it gives the nominee a chance to answer questions about the issues behind the restrictions. This also gives them a chance for them to show that they understand why those restrictions are in place, and show that they have / will continue to comply with the restrictions once they are back in force. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I'd be interested in the stats for people who have been desysopped with the "May regain via RfA" provision. I can't think of anyone offhand who has passed RfA after that. But that's not an issue of desysopping or ArbCom, it's the ridiculous standards applied at RfA these days. It's closer to "Requests for Sainthood". There are a dozen really solid people I can think of who would have been a shoo-in ten years ago but would probably fail today: you have to have created FAs, engaged in dispute resolution processes, engaged in some (but not too many) debates, voted Delete enough and Keep enough at AfD, all without pissing off agenda editors. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
When an editor is sanctioned, edits productively without violating the sanction, and appeals after the minimum appeal time expires, the sanction is usually lifted because it's no longer needed and lifting it is better for everyone. This case seems to fit that mold. BHG has "done her time" as it were, there's no reason to extend it. The "portal wars" are over. Given her commitments above it's unlikely that the restrictions are actually needed to prevent any problems going forward. We're not going to learn anything relevant in the future that we haven't already learned after eight months. Why take up ArbCom's and other editors' time with another appeal down the road instead of lifting the restrictions now? Lev!vich 03:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 's suggestion is a good one, so I started the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Lev!vich 22:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus
If BHG is to participate in an RfA, these sanctions would necessarily have to be lifted, as this is surely an issue that someone is going to raise. Since she has preemptively agreed to continue to abide by the spirit and general letter of those sanctions outside the scope of the nominating process, and isn’t going to directly interact with NA, the committee should absolutely accept the amendment as proposed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung
"May regain via RfA" is pretty much a death sentence for regaining the tools which an otherwise competent and respected long-time user who knows how to put them to frequent, good, and indispensable use - and the ArbCom is fully aware of its consequences. In face of the character assassination that is unavoidably imparted by a desysoping  of this kind for which no appeal is permitted, in  order to avoid compromising  an intended new run  for adminshipship, the only  solution is to completely vacate any existing restrictions.

I strongly recommend all commenting here to read both BGH's statement following her desysoping and her Shermanesque comment to and to grant  even more respect for having the courage to nevertheless remain active despite her statement. That's what I call 'true dedication' to a worthy cause despite the inadequacies and iniquities of its Arbitration Committee. This statement by puts it best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to : I totally agree that the modern expectations at RfA are far too high and the new breed of voters caused by the reforms, many of whom are very inexperienced and only vote 'as per', can cause an unexpected sway in the result. OTOH, most serious candidatures do appear to pass with a healthy majority. That said, unfortunately, some candidates, and admins - including me - have been unable to turn the other cheek in the long term, to some nasty individuals who harass and gaslight us, and avoid pissing them off. You can see where it got us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to : I'm not sure: 'the desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions' - we don't know what discussions take place off-stage. Naturally some desyopings and/or sanctions are without question absolutely the only possible outcome. Willing to nominate is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
Setting aside the merits of this particular case, it does occur to me that having an un-recused arbitrator telling a party that they would nominate them for adminship isn't ... ideal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe
Remedy 1, “prohibited ... engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia” should be wound back. There’s no good reason why she shouldn’t be able to comment on her past involvement with ongoing things such as portal categorisation. I would advise BHG to not mass nominate portals for deletion.

Remedy 2 I would not touch. At RfA, BHG may very well be tempted by questioners to engage on the topic of past behaviours involving herself and User:Northamerica1000. However, every sensible question should be well answered by a statement that does not include “commenting about Northamerica1000”. BHG’s RfA2 should be about BHG, not about another editor. BHG should not comment on Northamerica1000.
 * As I guessed, my thoughts are in line with Northamerica1000's statement. I fear BHG may be challenged on old statements associated with NA1K, and there may be temptation to summarise her then perceptions, re-litigating the past, and BHG RfA2 could then contain a pseudo-trial of NA1K.  I recommend a hard bright line: "BHG may not comment about Northamerica1000", no matter what other editors in the RfA ask or comment.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having watched BHG and NA1K over the extended period of difficulty, it is obvious to me, without surprise, that sensitivities on both side are still raw. Continuation of the IBAN is for the good of the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Regarding 's statement (about 's initial response as an Arb): "Willing to nominate is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely." WTT basically offering to be a BHG nominator for AfD (but simply getting beaten to it) is also an obvious reason to recuse. The optics are terrible, even if WTT's rede so far on the request is skeptical beyond the "may answer at RfA" point.

As for the heart of the matter, I agree that being able to answer questions at RfA about this should be permitted, on the same basis that someone under a T-ban is allowed to discuss it, as a T-ban and series of issues that led up to it, in an administrative or community proceeding (like this ARCA) that pertains to their conduct. It's the same sort of "the community examining one's behavior and judgment" meta-discussion.

I also tend to agree that the portal-war stuff is old news, and a continuing topic-ban about it doesn't serve a preventative purpose in this case. However, the interaction-ban stuff might be no longer needed, and we have yet to hear from the other party. I've had some intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG of my own, so I'm skeptical that everything is just kosher between those two editors now, even though I also find most of BHG's work and actions constructive and of value to the project. (This kind of "intelligence and good faith != suitable temperament" distinction is why we have RfA to begin with, and is also a major part of WP:CIR.)

There's not a close connection between T-bans and disruptive behavior that is topical, on the one hand, and I-bans and unreasonably hostile inter-personal behavior, on the other. They're entirely severable, both as remedies and as behavior patterns that lead to remedies. Next, "it'll be hard to pass RfA again" isn't a rationale to remove any ban, anyway. Bans should be lifted when they no longer serve their project-protecting purpose. Not for other "reasons". (But they definitely should be lifted under that condition, whether they impede the editor's constructive editing or not.)

PS: I can think of at least two desysopped admins who regained the bit, so I don't buy this "the 'May regain adminship via RfA' clause is an admin death sentence" nonsense. Trust once lost is hard to regain, in every aspect of life, but usually not impossible.

PPS: I also do not buy the argument that appeals filed by third-parties are invalid. They're uncommon, but I myself benefited from one, years ago, so I know for absolute fact that they're permissible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Worm That Turned, I'll take my response to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This from BHG is, shall we say, a fancifully fictionalized account. But ArbCom already knows this from e-mail evidence I sent them at the time. I was likely to actually sit out BHG's upcoming re-RfA, but now the editor has bent this gift-horse appeal into another venue to re-allege the same old badly distorted to outright false accusations. (This isn't the venue for details, though RfA will be.)  I support 2/3 of BHG's appeal requests (and the third-party opening of the request being valid), skeptical only of the I-ban part due to previous negative interactions I found personally unpleasant.  Yet BHG responds to this concern in an appeal by doubling down on specific aspersions (not relevant in any way to the appeal), after making this statement about commitment to civility?  Seems somewhere between counterproductive and self-defeating. If someone mostly giving you the benefit of the doubt brings up old wounds as their remaining reservation, you don't rip them back open (after stating that you're not into rending flesh any more).  Along with the concerns raised now by Northamerica1000, the other directly affected party, this has clear implications for whether the I-ban portion of BHG's restriction should be lifted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is "tripling down" a phrase? BHG now continues: "SMcCandlish made a criticism of me which appeared to refer to a bogus allegation of harassment that was dismissed by the community at ANI".  Except I did nothing of the sort.  I stated that I had felt some previous "wiki-personal experiences" with this editor as "intensely unpleasant".  (That may reflect as much on me and my own temperament, along the "it takes two to argue" and "you own your own emotions" principles, of course.  But I'm not appealing an I-ban or seeking restoration of admin tools.)  BHG has incorrectly assumed something highly specific and kind of bad-faithy from what I said, and then – not discerning/acknowledging a difference between me describing my internal feelings about some interactions, versus me projecting a characterization about her person – has turned retro-aggressive about it.  The abortive ANI stuff that she refers to, which was primarily about -wiki interaction, is not even what I had in mind. Although some of the wiki-interactions I'm thinking of were part of what ultimately led up to that ANI noise, some of them are earlier and completely unrelated (though similar to more recent issues; see sample diffs below).  BHG is correct that what she's mentioned are the most recent "issues" between us, though.  For my part, I have studiously avoided arguing with BHG, and have even skirted most CfDs in which I would have to disagree with a BHG !vote/nom. I hadn't looked into it until just now, but on CIVIL stuff, BHG's pattern of dismissiveness toward, mischaracterization of the concerns of, and eagerness to battleground against editors who disagree with her seems to have actually worsened since the RFARB, e.g. . In the next example, someone else was being a bit heavy-handed (after repeat attempts to get traction with BHG on the matter), but BHG's response would probably doom most RfA candidates: .  And it got much worse from there.  The wording gave me a hunch, which turned out correct: BHG has a habit of hyperbolically accusing other editors of "weaponizing" [insert something here] against her, and it's often combined with strings of other accusations, e.g.: "Your cynical, bullying, abusive, edit-warring attempts to weaponise ..." . Those last two diffs are best examined in their entire multi-page context (here, too). The short version is that the other editor, RexxS, availed of REFACTOR to do list-formatting repair on the discussion, for ACCESS reasons, and BHG engaged in an extended editwar to stop him, selectively quoting TPG and pretending that REFACTOR wasn't an exception and that ACCESS didn't matter, not because she disagreed on the merits of any of that, or didn't really understand the WP:P&G pages that applied, but just to stick it to someone she was having a real-content dispute with in the same discussion.  This is a total "WtF?!"  She even tried to ANI him, where she ASCII-screamed "STOP YOUR LYING" in bolded allcaps at him over and over and over.  While RexxS had erred in reverting a whole post of hers during that fiasco, I really don't think this was called for: "After RexxS's repeated lies and vile smears [....] I really thought that I had already seen the very worst of Wikipedia, but RexxS's despicable conduct today has plumbed depths an order of magnitude worse than I have seen before."  That was just block-worthy on its own. This "weaponization" stuff is usually also in close proximity to declarations that people are "banned" from her talk page (see several diffs above, and unrelated one here).  While USERPAGE encourages us to respect requests to avoid non-required user-talk interaction, it's a quasi-privilege admins basically don't have, due to ADMINACCT requiring them to be responsive to editors raising concerns about their decisions (though BHG attempted to subject me to such a "ban" while she was still an admin, now that I think of it).  I was looking for something else in BHG's user-talk history (any post-RFARB issues between the two of us in her user-talk that I might have forgotten).  Instead, in just a couple of minutes I ran into more (and quite recent) evidence for opposition than what I'd already considered maybe presenting at a re-RfA.  This does not bode well.  What will one find with a search for an intersection of "BrownHairedGirl" and "lies/liar"? Or "despicable", "vile", "abuse/abusive", "bully[ing]"?  I don't want to look.  I was originally critical of the desysop decision (for procedural/policy reasons) , but everything I'm seeing now suggests it was the correct move from an ADMINCOND perspective.

Statement by OID
Lets be clear about this, this request is entirely about making the re-RFA process for BHG easier and avoiding the consequences of their restrictions. BHG's ownership issues, editing behaviours as well as their conduct towards others, and the resulting lack of any admin willing to do anything about their fellow admin's behaviour and blatant refusal to abide by community-mandated policies are what led to the desysopping and restrictions with NA1000 in the first place. Either consider lifting the various restrictions on their merit, or do not. But unless BHG has had a radical change of personality in the intervening time period (rather than the situation being that the restrictions are doing their job), lifting them would be a mistake. Leaving the topic ban in place so they cant answer questions (if you are not going to lift it completely) is exactly what you should do. As anyone unfamiliar who shows up at the RFA will then have an accurate grasp of the circumstances. Claiming its 'unfair' they cannot answer questions about their restrictions is misleading. That is the result of BHG's behaviour, no one else's. It is not unfair to have to deal with a situation you created. What is 'unfair' is that a former admin should get preferential treatment. They recieved preferential treatment before the arbcom case, and now they are getting it after. It is extremely telling that WTT below says "The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions" - anyone who has read the actual voting and the comments made by the arbiters there would have to be a blithering idiot to believe that gross mis-charactization of the comments there. That was not 'a close thing'. Arbcom's duty is towards the community as a whole, and this sort of blatant favoritism is a slap in the face to that end. The partisanship is not even superficially obscured here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark
I'm ambivalent as to whether the restrictions should be suspended for the duration of the RfA. At first glance, it seems reasonable for BHG to be able to answer questions about the issue. On the other hand, this does very much seem like special treatment and it is not ArbCom's responsibility to make this process easier for BHG. I might be more inclined have some sympathy for BHG were it not for my familiarity with the circumstances that led to her desysop, but I'll save those thoughts for when the RfA opens. Moreover, I am deeply troubled by WTT's unwillingness to recuse even after they have openly indicated their desire to serve as a nominator in BHG's re-RfA. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 20:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the i-ban beyond the duration of the RfA. BHG established an extensive history of grossly subpar interactions with NA1K. She has stated that she has no desire for further interaction with NA1K and has indicated that she stands by her assessment of NA1K's actions with regard to the portal controversy. In my opinion, that's close enough to a statement that she stands by her treatment of NA1K, which is the very behavior that got her desysopped. In other words, I see zero reason to believe that lifting the i-ban would be of any benefit to the encyclopedia. BHG does not want to interact with NA1K and, at any rate, she has demonstrated an unwillingness to do so civilly. L EPRICAVARK  ( talk ) 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
This would look like a double standard; having even the mildest of restrictions erased just for having complied with them for 6 months whereas for commonfolk that might require a couple years of sainthood. But I don't think that the intent was to prevent answering questions at an RFA and IMO it would be a good idea to waive them for responding at the RFA. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Scottywong
A ban on working with portals and an interaction ban with NA1K were given to BHG 8 months ago. The terms of both of these bans explicitly allowed BHG to appeal them after 6 months. This request is that appeal. In my opinion, the question shouldn't be "has BHG done enough and behaved well enough to deserve overturning the ban?" Instead, the question should be, "has BHG specifically done anything to show that she is undeserving of being granted this appeal?" That would be my challenge to everyone here: can anyone point to anything that BHG has done in the last 8 months that is evidence that she's not ready for either of these bans to be permanently overturned? If the answer is no, then I think it's clear that we should grant the appeal. Because if we allow someone to appeal a ban after 6 months, and they've done nothing during that 6 months to be undeserving of that appeal, but we deny the appeal anyway, then what's the point of even allowing a user to make an appeal in the first place?

Is anyone truly worried that if these bans are overturned, BHG would dive right back into contentious actions with portals, and strike up a heated argument with NA1K? As far as I can tell, BHG has accepted her bans and diligently worked to ensure that she wasn't violating them. Above, she has stated that she would voluntarily continue to avoid NA1K as much as possible if the ban was lifted. Especially if her RfA succeeds, she would have to know that another blow-up with NA1K would land her right back at Arbcom for a swift desysop.

If we're willing to overturn the bans for the duration of the RfA, then we should just overturn them permanently. There is no need to treat editors like children who can't control their own behavior, especially after they've demonstrated that they've learned their lesson and accepted the consequences for the better part of a year. Besides, in this very discussion I see clear signs that NA1K is attempting to milk these bans for all they're worth: flailing around as if he's been shot in the heart because BHG pinged his username in this discussion (gasp!), making absurd requests that everyone refer to him as "the user" at the upcoming RfA instead of by his username, etc. It's getting ridiculous, and it's time to end it so that productive editors can dispense with childish, punitive punishments and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia. ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| [comment] || 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I understand that you are not a fan of BHG's personality, the quotes you posted (from 7 months ago) provide no evidence that BHG would have a problem specifically avoiding interactions with you, and/or avoiding problematic interactions with the Portal namespace, in the absence of an overly restrictive ban that prohibits her from even mentioning your name or acknowledging the existence of the Portal namespace. These diffs are surely a great dry run for your predictable opposition to BHG's upcoming RfA, but unfortunately they are wholly irrelevant in a more specific discussion of her appeal to lift these bans. The bans in question only involve interactions with you and the Portal namespace. BHG is not currently banned from having discussions on her own user talk page, nor is she banned from posting negative judgments about other users on her user talk page, or asking other users to stay off of her user talk page. Every user has the right to ask other users to stay off of their user talk page. In your characteristically over-dramatic words, everyone is "judge, jury, and executioner" on their own user talk page, per WP:UOWN. While you may not agree with BHG's opinions or enjoy her personality (both of which are your right), no WP policies were violated in the diffs you provided, and none of BHG's bans were violated either.

Statement by Dave
Lifting the restriction is the best solution here, It's unfair to lift it for BHG but then keep it for NA1K (NA1K would have no reason to need it lifted but that's not the point - we cannot have one rule for one and one for another.), Generally speaking I would've preferred this to be lifted in s year or 2 not 6 months but looking at various options lifting it seems the best option. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Only just spotted the 24hr motion - If it's only for 24 hours and not say 5-7 days then I'd support temporarily lifting it. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I had obviously assumed it was a two-way thing, In that case I have no issue with the duration either now. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify I support lifting the restriction temporarily for the RFA. Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
I don't think I've ever interacted with BrownHairedGirl (I don't get involved in categories much), however I've worked with NorthAmerica1000 and found him to be perfectly reasonable. Since BHG has not had any cause for objections to the topic ban to be lifted, I think it should just be lifted full stop. More specifically, I think any editor has the right to tell another editor to stay off their talk page if they have sufficient justification to do so. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
This is a comment about User:Beeblebrox's Motion below, feel free to move this to the other section if more appropriate. I don't think it is logical to tie a 24-hour countdown clock to an event that has not yet occurred - would we need to assume good faith that the second this occurs it is ok and a clock starts - and if the transclusion doesn't actually occur within 24 hours it is retroactively in violation? If you want to exempt that page, just exempt it for a fixed period (e.g. for one month) - if the RfA never starts it would expire, and if it does start RfA pages are already not expected to be edited after RfA closure. — xaosflux  Talk 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response - just don't want to see ArbCom setting up a scenario where an RfA candidate that decides they actually aren't ready after drafting has to post their RfA and immediately withdraw it (as opposed to delaying posting it at all) - then potentially have to start another RfA nomination just to avoid running in to a sanctions timebomb. — xaosflux  Talk 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
Whether it's blocks or Arbcom action, we should not be punitive. If there's a track record without trouble, Arbcom should agree to lift the measures. 8 months is plenty. Just lift them. Temporarily lifting them is no solution in my opinion, because it shows !voters in the RfA that Arbcom does not trust her. Let the community have an unencumbered view of the candidate. But mostly because there is evidence there's no longer a need for the sanctions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Crouch, Swale
I support lifting at least for the RFA (which is being discussed as a general exception at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy anyway). While I am aware of BHG unfortunately having some civility issues, generally BHG is civil and has a good understanding of WP policy and I think BHG's view that many portals were unsuitable was correct and BHG was getting rid of junk from our encyclopedia (and I speak as someone who used to favour keeping almost anything).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * regarding you're comment today in support of the motion, this kind of thing is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (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.

Portals: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse I am one of the said nominators in her second RfA. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just curious, would this extend to a crat chat? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An interesting question in theory, but I don't remember ever seeing a candidate comment on a 'crat chat about his or her own RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions, and still I do not believe it raised to the level of one at the time (especially in comparison to some of the other cases we've dealt with). I believe I made a statement soon after the desysop was accepted that I would be willing to nominate BHG as an admin. Now you have a few nominators, but drop me a line if you feel my nomination would help. That said, I do not believe that the other restrictions should be lifted outright. I would accept their suspension during the RfA, as BHG should be able to be open about the subject at that forum, and RfA voters will want to be able to ask their questions on the matter. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern for recusal in isolation, however, when you look at the larger situation, you will see that I have not interacted with BHG outside of Arbcom cases, I regularly nominate individuals after reviewing their contributions and go on to never interact with them (you can look on my user page for examples), my nomination will primarily be addressing the Arbcom decision and my thoughts on that. Simply, this comes down to two factors, firstly - I accept the decision of the committee, but did not agree with it, and so feel that se deserves a fair shake at community review, and secondly, I feel that RfA is an unpleasant prospect for anyone, let alone someone who has had their admin bits removed, and they deserve a fair shake at community review - again check out my user page to see that this view is something I have been consistent with for nearly a decade. <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>) 09:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would certainly grant the requested amendment at least to the extent that the restrictions should not apply in the forthcoming RfA. With regard to a broader lifting of the restrictions, I will allow some time for any additional statements before opining. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Having read the statements posted over the past couple of days, I still believe it makes sense for BrownHairedGirl's restrictions to be suspended for purposes of an RfA&mdash;that is, they would not apply on her RfA page and its talkpage. To be clear, I do not think it's in anyone's (including BHG's) interest that she focus unduly on Northamerica1000 in the RfA discussion&mdash;indeed, I strongly think it would be in everyone's interest that she mention him as little as possible&mdash;but it might be impossible for her not to mention him at all, and she is certainly going to have to say something about portals. In response to the above comments by Only in death and Lepricavark, this modification would not be intended merely as making the RfA easier (or more difficult) for BrownHairedGirl; it's equally about the community of !voters having the benefit of an unconstrained discussion. Procedurally, is it sufficient that we seem to have a consensus of arbitrators in agreement with this, or do we need a formal motion? If a motion is required, I will post one, as we should decide at least this aspect of the matter promptly.
 * With regard to the broader question of lifting the restrictions altogether, I don't think anyone (including BHG herself) wants to see her return unrestrainedly to the portals arena, but I might support a more nuanced modification that would allow her to make an occasional passing reference to a portal when it's directly relevant to something else she is discussing. Similarly, I don't see any reason for BHG to comment about NA1000, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that BHG shouldn't ever be allowed to cross NA1000's path again in any discussion anywhere for the rest of their wiki-lives. Is there a modification here that everyone can live with? Or would it make sense to defer deciding this aspect of the matter until sometime after the RfA-related prong is resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with lifting the restrictions for the purpose of the upcoming RfA. It would not be fair to BHG, nor to the community, if these subjects could not be openly discussed. I would not support repealing the restrictions outright at this time. – bradv  🍁  03:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm discouraged by BrownHairedGirl's comment here that she "stands by her assessments of portals and of NA1K's role therein." These assessments were expressed in ways that this committee found to be "personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith" (FoF #6), and reiterating them here is evidence that the restrictions remain necessary. Furthermore, the comments she has made here with respect to Northamerica1000 and SMcCandlish are clearly designed to be hurtful, as demonstrated by the response they have elicited, and therefore fall short of the level of discourse that we expect on this project. The bottom line is that I can't endorse repealing any of these restrictions without some evidence that BrownHairedGirl understands the reasons for them and is willing to make a commitment to do better. "Standing by" the comments that led to this case is, quite simply, counterproductive. – bradv  🍁  04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe we would need a motion to carve out an exception for the purposes of an RfA. In fact, I think it would make sense to write such an exception into WP:BANEX, but that is a question for the community to deal with, and outside of the scope of this amendment request. – bradv  🍁  19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am open to temporarily lifting the restriction on discussing portals for the period of the RfA, though I am not sure I see the value in permanently lifting it given that BHG has no intention of returning to that space. I would also support a loosening of the IBAN, again only for the period of the RfA and only at RfA-related pages, but would prefer to see some kind of wording that makes it clear that while BHG may mention NA1000 if it's relevant to RfA-related discussion, she is still expected not to interact with or comment about them elsewhere on the project.If BHG wants the restrictions lifted permanently, I'm open to hearing the argument, but the current request does not make it seem like she's interested in returning to that kind of editing, nor do the restrictions appear to be disrupting her current day-to-day editing in any major way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support lifting the restrictions, with the understanding that they can be reimposed if there should be unconstructive editing in that area or conflict with the individual.. There were several similar cases this year, and, altho I voted for desysop, I think I might have ben unduly influenced by the need to set a precedent that we would indeed take action.  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm open to removing the restrictions per WP:ROPE—I don't much see the point of only doing so for an RfA. We either take a user at their word and work from there or we consider the sanctions necessary and don't. And I don't think pinging NorthAmerica was at all hostile or in violation of the topic ban, fwiw. It's directly germane to the topic of discussion; we shouldn't be in the business of making people play charades when discussing previous sanctions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My thinking is in line with GW. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Portals

 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, though it's worth mentioning that if the behaviors that led to the restrictions are repeated during this RfA that will almost certainly affect any future appeal. Also noting that it may be worth a community discussion of whether circumstances such as this should be built into WP:BANEX so that should other ArbCom-restricted users wish to run for RfA we don't have to handle each case-by-case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm behind the times. Crouch, Swale has pointed out that there's already a discussion regarding BANEX at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, although quite cautiously per my comments above. (P.S. I've changed the wording as per the conversation below. The original wording was "...and its associated talk page, and only for 24 hours before the RfA is transcluded and while it is an active RFA.") – bradv  🍁  00:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) With updated wording. Regards So Why  07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) <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>) 06:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've copyedited by adding the words "for 24 hours before the RfA is transcluded and". This will allow BrownHairedGirl to mention the arbitration case if she wishes in her candidate statement and/or her answers to the standard questions, which are typically completed before the RfA is transcluded. If you disagree with this addition, please revert it and I'll propose it as a separate motion.
 * Discussion
 * That edit is fine with me Brad, I usually go into these things with the assumption I've not thought of something and on of ya'll will catch it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that "active RFA" encompasses the time until the RFA is closed one way or another, including time it is on hold if there is a crat chat? Regards So  Why  07:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When an RfA ends, even if a 'crat chat is opened, the RfA pages are usually closed to further input, so the issue of whether BHG (or anyone else) could post on the pages then seems moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Historically, only the RFA page is put on hold, but the talk page is kept open and the crat chat's talk page is also open to the community. Imho, the exemption should cover both those pages until the RFA is closed for good. If there is a crat chat and BHG wishes to react to something people write, she should be allowed to do so just like on the RFA page itself. Regards So  Why  17:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please suggest a copyedit to the motion. I just don't want us to overcomplicate or delay something that I hope should be relatively simple. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "...temporarily lifted, only at Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process." – bradv  🍁  18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a pretty good wording I would support. Regards So  Why  18:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay with me also. Pinging Beeblebrox as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the reference to 24 hours (the original motion just covered the period of the RfA itself, which would have created a logistical problem, as I noted above). I didn't mean it as a rigid time limit, just in the sense of "shortly before the RfA is transcluded." If BHG said she needed 48 or 72 hours, I would have no objection (though I don't think a month would be necessary). But I see from a discussion on User talk:BrownHairedGirl that she and her nominator are planning to draft the nomination statement and responses to the standard questions off-wiki and post them when they are ready to proceed, which I think resolves this concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Troubles (December 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The C of E at 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
 * Removal of restrictions


 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
 * "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles

Statement by The C of E
I would like to request removal of my Troubles restrictions because I do feel that the lesson has been learned. I feel I have shown in the past I am able to edit in these areas evenhandedly with John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and Gerry Mullan (politician) being some examples. The crux of the ban was based on me allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day which was not desirable to consensus. While I have been under the ban, 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on DYK on Ulster Day so I feel its not been done consistently. As for the judicial review article, I already explained that was an unfortunate coincidence and I had not been thinking about it at the time I wrote the article.

If removal is not acceptable, can I request then that it be amended to permit editing of sporting articles. The reason I ask is because I asked if I could edit GAA articles and he said no because of the sport's political culture. But most players and clubs are not political and I have done work in there previously without concern (Seán Quigley, Killian Clarke, Ian Burke, Gerry Culliton, Cillian O'Connor, PSNI GAA and Irish Guards GAA). So, if full removal is not desired, I would like it amended for clarity and so I am able to continue working on sporting articles please.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that people are slightly misunderstanding my clarification request here and . I do not want to edit the GAA article, what I would like to do is make it clear if I am permitted to edit on the sportspeople and clubs who play Gaelic football and Hurling.  Those aren't political if it is as  stated that it doesn't come under the sanction. The reason I said "GAA" because I had assumed people knew that it was an encompassing term for Gaelic football and Hurling (as opposed to the sporting/political body) but I was mistaken and for that I apologise.   The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If GAA is off limits for its political associations, so be it. But I don't think sport as a whole is. Football and rugby for example aren't political.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When I think of sports, I don't tend to connect them with politics even with GAA hence why I asked. I ask an honest question in good faith for clarification but now it looks like I am going to have the screw tightened for daring to ask. I could have just gone on and done the editing willy-nilly but I didn't, I tried to get it squared and understood fairly but it is upsetting when you try to do everything right and by the book and get pilloried for it again. As I see this may be how it is for this restriction, I formally withdraw my request  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
The WP:AE request mentioned a parallel discussion which is now at WP:AN archive. That WP:AN discussion was closed with the restrictions at WP:Editing restrictions. Those restrictions handle my greatest concern as they seem to prevent further problems regarding DYK. Accordingly I am relaxed about whatever the Committee wants to do regarding the WP:AE topic ban. Nevertheless, I have to record that "allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day" is an own-goal in an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I participated in the AE discussion, and gave my reasons for why I supported imposing a topic ban there. I don't have anything in particular to add to that. I will say that the fact that a community discussion at AN also came to the conclusion that there was disruptive behavior which merited sanctions shows that outcome to be a reasonable one. I think best at this time if the editor does productive editing in other topic areas, and then revisits this in six months or a year. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 30 November 2020 (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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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



The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * AE doesn't exactly follow the same procedures as the full committee, but speaking only for myself, I'm not inclined to consider lifting a t-ban placed for such reasons, in one of our most contentious topic areas, after only three months. And while I do appreciate that they did ask the admin who closed the original discussion if edits they were contemplating might violate the ban, the article in question has an entire section on "nationalism and community relations, so I should think the answer was rather obvious. While I am willing to be convinced, this does not fill me with confidence that lifting the ban is the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just re-iterating what was said below, the top article on the subject makes it clear that the overall topic of Gaelic football is closely related to Irish nationalism. Further it stretches AGF to the breaking point to imagine the appellant wasn't already perfectly aware of that. I would suggest waiting at least 12 months before even considering appealing this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's put aside the fact that sport in Ireland is closely connected to sectarian politics, and therefore doesn't even have to come under the "broadly construed" part of the sanction, or that one of the DYK hooks that led to the AE sanction specifically referred to Gaelic football. The crux of the AE decision and parallel discussion at AN was CofE's tendency to insert inflammatory political statements or offensive 'jokes' into DYK hooks on seemingly mundane topics. There's the NI-related examples cited at AE, which involved articles on several minor elections (1, 2 or a 3), a court case, a local council (and although CofE says "allegedly" above, he specifically asked that at least one of these run on The Twelfth). But also from the AN discussion: a Methodist hymn becomes an excuse to insult the Prophet Muhammad; a piece of public art becomes a coat-rack for homophobic slurs; three minor landmarks in New Zealand all happen to have a derogatory slur in their name; a university anthem somehow ends up summarised with a tangentially-related white supremacist slogan; the list goes on. The AE topic ban was fully justified and the broadly construed proviso is extremely important in this context. It has only been in place for a few months, and I see no indication from the above statement that CofE has learned anything from it since he still maintains this is a misunderstanding of isolated incidents. It isn't, and the topic ban should remain in place for the foreseeable future. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the confusing wording. I think that sport in Ireland is definitely included in the topic ban. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they are, as I think you're well aware. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see absolutely no reason to reduce this topic ban. Joe does an excellent job of summarising the links that I have reviewed, but my biggest concern is the fact that you have multiple times attempted to bring inflammatory subjects onto the front page on Wikipedia on dates that will exacerbate those concerns. Putting the word "allegedly" seals this for me - given there are clear comments which request the date, implying that you are either (AGF) unaware of ramifications of your actions, and therefore should be kept out of the area, or (ABF) lying through your teeth, and therefore should be kept out of the area and possibly out of Wikipedia all together. I am willing to accept that you can move on to less problematic editing with the topic ban (and other editing restrictions) in place, and I may reconsider after a significant period of non-inflammatory behaviour, but this was put in place only a few months ago. I thank our AE admins for coming up with a solution here that allowed CofE to continue editing, and I hope he realises that more drastic action could have been reasonably taken. <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>) 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you appear to be reading Joe's statement differently to me. Due to the close nature of the sport and politics, editing any Gaelic football articles would be a breach of even a "narrow" view of the topic ban - you don't even need the "broadly construed" part. In other words, no, I do not believe you should be editing any of the Gaelic sports personality articles at present, due to the sports political culture. As you say, this view has been shared by Barkeep, and I believe it is also shared by, based on my reading of his statement (though I'm sure he'll be able to correct me if I'm wrong) <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>) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Joe and WTT. Regards So  Why  14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. The topic ban is far too recent for us to consider lifting it on the basis that is no longer necessary, and I don't see any reason to conclude that the ban itself was unwarranted. I would advise CofE to stay far away from any topics having to do with Irish–British relations, whether in parliament or on the pitch, and to not appeal again until they have a solid track record of uncontroversial editing to point to (i.e. at least six months). – bradv  🍁  16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with everyone above, particularly Joe. I am voting to decline and this appeal of the topic ban raises some additional concerns about whether the issue is fully understood and how to avoid these same problems should the topic ban be lifted. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014) (December 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 14:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * 

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
Does the standard DS 1RRs exclude include all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO? The DS 1RR notices, eg Template:American politics AE, states solely: "With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
 * Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
 * Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
 * Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction."

However, the WP policy WP:1RR makes reference to ArbCom's 1RRs and states: "Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, under arbitration enforcement [...]. These restrictions are generally called 1RR.

The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"." (emphasis mine). But none of ArbCom's procedures or templates make reference to WP:3RRNO, and the "clear vandalism" exemption that the templates does provide does not encapsulate everything on that list (indeed, it is only bullet #4). Extra exemptions from 3RRNO include copyright violations, material illegal in the US like "child pornography and links to pirated software" & BLP violations.

To add: There is a practical impact here. My query stems from Administrators%27_noticeboard, where there was a mention of Special:Diff/987532889. An admin suggested that reverting this would burn an editor's 1 revert of the day, even though it's clearly an unsourced BLP violation, and thus should be exempt under WP:3RRNO. But it's not in the DS 1RR exemptions.
 * that was worded in a bit of a double negative way. I meant to word it in the positive (i.e. do the exclusions of WP:3RRNO apply). Same answer, but... amended. It's also worth noting that this discrepancy is in all arbitration templates, not just this one. ie IPA AE, ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, and the generic wrappers too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * btw, if the net effect of the DS 1RR is to add "enforcing current consensus" to the list of exemptions, does that mean it's not part of the 3RR policy? So, even on these 1RR articles, an editor can still only enforce up to 3 current consensus per day until they're in breach of 3RR? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
Does the standard DS 1RRs exclude all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO?" No. Those exemptions apply to all reverts everywhere, even if it's not explicitly stated in this particular 1RR template. The net effect of the wording in that template is to add "enforcing clearly established consensus" to the list of other exemptions like reverting vandalism and child pornography. To that effect it's worded poorly. It might be better to just say something along the lines of: In addition to the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO, edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from the edit-warring restriction. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. That's my opinion at least. ~Awilley (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to the example edit in question: it is wildly inappropriate and I'm not defending it, but it was not unsourced. The convention in that article is to have all the citations in the body of the article and no citations in the Lead. And the conspiracy bit is supported in the body at Donald Trump. And the user added a citation to the Lead here anyway. I'd still say it's a BLP violation for reasons of WP:WEIGHT, but I don't know that it's obvious enough to be able to invoke the exemption. If that example doesn't do it for you, it's not hard to find other borderline examples of unhelpful edits whose reverts wouldn't qualify for a 3RRNO exemption. ~Awilley (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Any restriction based on revert counting offers a first-mover advantage. It seems to me that the default should be to enforce BRD, rather than arguing how many angels are dancing on the head of a particular revert. BRD is a long-standing consensus view of how Wikipedia should work, and it puts the onus on the editor seeking to make the change, to achieve consensus.

The exception should be removal of controversial or negative material, where we should err on the side of exclusion unless the sourcing is robust.

I feel that there is too much emphasis on counting reverts and not enough on taking these disputes to Talk and working them out through methodical discussion and analysis. That's the behaviour we're trying to drive, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Clerk notes

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



Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The exceptions listed at 3RRNO are designed to be "obvious and uncontroversial" and therefore reasonable for any individual to make without any repercussions. I would fully expect them to apply as exceptions to DS 1RR articles. The question of that specific edit - well, in my eyes it's a clear violation "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" with regards to a BLP, so I would certainly understand an individual attempting to revert under the exception as it certainly adds a strong bias to the article. Of course American Political articles are an absolute hot potato at present and reverting is not the way to solve the issue. <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>) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All sanctions and restrictions are to be enforced with common sense, and the standard exceptions are standard exceptions for a reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consistent way to do have a xRR sanction without favoring either the first or second mover, and the use of 1RR accentuates this problem. The situation is bad enough with ordinary sanctions; having DS restrictions greatly complicates things, and can lead to a situation which prevents a fair solution. NYBrad proposes that all sanctions be enforced with common sense; I agree with him, but the DS regime makes common sense inapplicable.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with WTT and NYB here although I do agree with Awilley's assessment for the particular edit in question considering that sources for these claims were in the body of the article at that time. ON a more practical level, I think there seems to be agreement that anything that is exempt from 3RR should usually also exempt from 1RR or 0RR but what change or amendment is sought here specifically? Regards So  Why  09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with WTT and NYB's assessments.  Maxim (talk)  15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland (December 2020)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 07:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Volunteer_Marek_topic-banned_2


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Proposed_decision#Volunteer_Marek_topic-banned_2
 * Topic ban is removed

Statement by Volunteer Marek
This is an appeal of my topic ban “from the history of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland” as enacted on September 22, 2019, per the portion of the decision which states This topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed.

Both myself and User:Icewhiz were topic-banned as a result of the case and we were both subject to an interaction ban. Subsequently for reasons which the committee should be familiar with, and which I mention below, Icewhiz was indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia, and then by the office, from all WikiMedia projects. Also relevant is the fact that WikiMedia’s Trust and Safety team assisted me in addressing the off-wiki harassment that Icewhiz was pursuing against me.

At the outset I would like to bring to the committee’s attention the fact that my topic ban which resulted from the case was NOT based on any issue with the contents of my edit to article space. There were no findings of facts relating to POV or abuse of sources or any other similar issues. Instead, the topic ban was the result of the nature of my interactions with User:Icewhiz, on talk pages and various discussions. In particular I received the TB because the committee found that both of us displayed a battleground attitude, that I was incivil to Icewhiz, that I accused him of “making stuff up” (incidentally, Icewhiz’s own topic ban was based at least partly on the committee having similar issues with Icewhiz’s edits, particularly on BLPs ). At same time the committee acknowledged that Icewhiz had made false accusations against me, made ethnically derogatory remarks, used inflammatory rhetoric and attempted to make extremely insulting insinuations against me. 

Essentially, the committee did not find anything wrong with my edits but did issue the topic ban for my incivil attitude towards him. This is understandable as I acknowledge that I did not always react well to Icewhiz’s provocations, especially given their extremely serious nature. I want to stress that Icewhiz was the only person that has managed to provoke such a reaction in me, and that even committee members acknowledged that there were no such problems with my editing outside of this narrow dispute (Arbitrator PreMeditatedChaos wrote in one of the relevant Findings of Fact: even Icewhiz has pointed out that VM's behavior is not an issue except in this topic area )

As such, in addition to more than a full year having elapsed, with Icewhiz being indefinitely banned from all WikiMedia project the reason for the topic ban has ceased to exist. In fact, given the subsequent events – the campaign of harassment that Icewhiz launched against me and numerous other Wikipedia editors (including several admins) – I had considered appealing the topic ban even before the one year deadline elapsed. In the end, because I was (and still am) very busy in real life with work and family issue, I decided that I might as well wait out the full year.

Even though Icewhiz is no longer on Wikipedia (although there was extensive socking in early 2020, however, the arbitration motion you guys passed in May which implemented the 500/30 restriction seems to have been quite successful in curbing it) I do want to note that I have had quite a bit of time to rethink and reflect upon the events leading up to the arbitration case and the topic ban. I fully admit that I overreacted at the time and should have worked harder at keeping my cool. Lack of subsequent issues (*) in the year following should show that.

At the same time I also want to mention that my overall engagement with Wikipedia has been substantially reduced. This is mostly due to being much busier in real life for reasons related to the covid pandemic.

Thanks for the consideration and take care of yourselves

(*) In the interest of full disclosure I should note that early on, about a week or two after the enactment of the topic ban, I did violate it and was given a short block as a result of an AE report, enacted by Bradv. The topic ban went into effect on September 22, 2019. The block was on October 10, 2019. I have not been sanctioned for any violations of the topic ban since then (more than a year) and that instance happened in part due to my misunderstanding of the scope of the ban (the edit concerned an author’s work about World War I, although the same author was also known for writing about World War II)

Honestly, since this was in April/May of last year, which is eons in Wikipedia time I don't even remember off the top off my head what this was about (apparently, Levivich couldn't remember it either since he had to go do digging for it only after your prompted them to follow up their vague accusations). Checking back through history, it seems that with regards to his diff 2 and diff 3 (same thing) there was an allegation that an edit of my violated the topic ban. I thought at the time they didn't since my edit concerned POST WAR Polish history, which would be outside the scope ban. There was some discussion on the issue, with finally User:El C saying that "the topic ban violation is not clear cut". Basically, while my edit was NOT about the topic there was a chunk of (newly added!) material in the relevant article that was (which I didn't touch, as El C explicitly noted "Volunteer Marek limits himself just to a discussion of the post-war time period (which he has been doing)"). However, he also pointed out that the fact that a different portion of the article dealt with WW2 would make it difficult for me to discuss some of the relevant issues on talk w/o violating the TB. That was a fair point. As a result I said ok, just to be sure, I won't edit the article anymore.

Sometimes it's very difficult to know what is covered and what is not covered by a given topic ban, especially since, as I noted elsewhere, World War 2 casts such a huge shadow over Polish history and culture that editing almost anything related to Poland will sooner or later bring you close to that topic. If this here was a topic ban violation (and it's not clear it was) then it was inadvertent one and I think I proceeded correctly - after it was brought to an admin's attention and they said it was "borderline", I disengaged from the article. I haven't edited it since. The matter was resolved and it hasn't come up again.

Levivich was NOT involved in this dispute in any capacity. I'm not sure why he feels that he in particular has to bring it here or what his motivation for doing so is.  Volunteer Marek  01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Buidhe
Unfortunately, I am not able to support this appeal, because I do not think it would be a net positive for the project or the topic area. Just over a week ago, they inserted this unhelpful comment on a dispute that they are not involved in. Note, no evidence that I was edit warring was presented, nor did VM file a complaint against edit warring at another page, to be decided by an administrator. (I believe this is a spill-over from a content dispute on List of genocides by death toll, where VM is arguing for the inclusion of Polish Operation as a genocide. Arguably this skirts their topic ban because of the proximity to World War II.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that VM is accusing me of edit warring across a number of pages. If it was true, he should have filed a report with all the evidence so that an uninvolved administrator could take appropriate action. (It's irrelevant whether or not there was edit warring on one particular page that VM never edited.) This comment seems to me to be a symptom of battleground attitude, which, I hope you agree, is not the behavior that is needed in this topic area.
 * I am skeptical that the long-running POV and content problems, as described by Ealdgyth just four months ago, will be fixed by the current crop of editors, especially now that it is proposed only Icewhiz remains blocked from the original case and new editors are frequently accused of being their socks. Some are but what environment is being created for good faith editors? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical that the long-running POV and content problems, as described by Ealdgyth just four months ago, will be fixed by the current crop of editors, especially now that it is proposed only Icewhiz remains blocked from the original case and new editors are frequently accused of being their socks. Some are but what environment is being created for good faith editors? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
I was going to stay out of this, but it's just not true (as arbs state below) that VM hasn't violated his topic ban since Bradv's block in October 2019. He's been warned for tban violations since then (for example, see his UTP history). There are also AE/AN/ANI threads in the last year; I don't remember offhand if they were for problems in or outside the topic area, or if they had any merit. But neither I nor any other member of the community should have to go digging to present this history to Arbcom. VM ought to list all of these things for the arbs to review. Levivich harass/hound 16:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK: April 2020: User talk:Levivich/Archive 6; May 2020: Special:Permalink/956951981 and Special:Permalink/956952564. If an editor appealing a TBAN should be able to demonstrate that they have edited non-disruptively in other topic areas, then we should look at their editing in other topic areas, e.g. August 2020 Kenosha riots ANI (re copy and paste move and move warring) which resulted in a formal warning (for moves at the Biden and Kenosha pages); August 2020 ANI (re Steve Bannon, inc. group tban proposal that did not succeed); and Sep 2020 UTP thread about edit warring at Turning Point USA and Steele dossier articles. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list; it's just the things that I happen to recall. (I'm not pinging the various admins involved so as not to be accused of canvassing.) Levivich harass/hound 21:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
The topic ban is one of the few remaining vestiges of the Icewhiz-era. It made mild sense as a way to prevent BATTLEGROUND that Icewhiz was creating and too often goading VM into engaging him (IIRC it came as a set combo with the interaction ban and Ice received the mirror equivalents of both of these as well). Now that Icewhiz is gone (the main account, as he still continues socking and real-life harassment and manipulation, for which he was site banned - Trust&Safety can provide further details if any ArbCom member requires them, I am sure) it makes no sense to keep VM restricted; all it does is that it still empowers Icewhiz behind the scenes and as such it is one of his 'victories' we can and should undo to move on.

Regarding preceding comments by Buidhe and Levivich, they are either disappointing petty attempts to keep people one disagreed with under the heel and out of one's hair, or worse, evidence of proxying for Icewhiz. Levivich has not been much active in the topic areas VM frequents/ed, and I think neither had interacted much with VM, yet now we see some obscure diffs from articles they never edited or discussions they did not participate in (!) concerning editor they should not care about. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C
I commend members of the Committee for expressing views in favour of, as well as an immediate motion, to rescind the ban. That is the right call. Not least because I don't think there's any indication that Volunteer Marek is likely to edit disruptively in the topic area. I'd like to also add the following emphasis to the record: the level of harassment that Volunteer Marek has endured (that I know of) is so beyond the pale, it's truly sickening. So needless to say, wide latitude should be extended to him for any past misconduct or near-misconduct which were directly impacted by this sinister and nefarious abuse. Anyway, looks like all is going well as far as this amendment is concerned — apologies in advance to VM in case I just jinxed it! El_C 05:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , while I disagree with and  here, I think it's inappropriate of you to raise the specter that one or both of them might be "proxying for Icewhiz." Beyond sensing intuitively that this is highly (highly) unlikely to be the case, they are both editors in good standing. They should not have to suffer such aspersions, just because you perceive the veracity of their position to fall short. El_C 05:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen 328
It seems obvious to me that removing this topic ban, imposed when the editor was under extreme harassment by the banned Icewhiz, is a good thing for the encyclopedia, and I hope that the arbs will come to the same conclusion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nihil novi
The now-banned Icewhiz's misbehaviors on Wikipedia, prior to his ban and since, have been truly egregious and should be counted as an extenuating circumstance to some of VM's responses to Icewhiz's provocative actions. I believe it is time to welcome VM back to a subject area to which he can make substantial contributions.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Peacemaker67
I am a great fan of TBANs, which usually work well to protect controversial areas of the project subject to Arbitration cases from egregious disruption by POV-pushers. However, I don't think this description applies to VM's behaviour that led to the TBAN. Considering Icewhiz has been ejected, and VM doesn't appear to have clearly breached the TBAN, I think Arbs should accept VM's request in good faith. Of course, in the tradition of supplying people with enough rope, VM should be under no illusions that any future disruption in the TBAN space will likely result in an indefinite TBAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 14 December 2020 (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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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



Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Noting that I'm amenable to lifting the topic ban - but want to hear community thoughts first. When I supported the topic ban, I did not feel strongly that it was required - but given VM's history in similar areas I thought a suggestion of moving elsewhere would be helpful. Given subsequent events - and assuming there has been no flare up, I am willing to concede it is no longer (and perhaps was never) needed. <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>) 08:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic ban (and most of the other remedies in Arbitration of Poland) was based almost entirely on the two-way dispute between VM and Icewhiz. Since Icewhiz has been indefinitely banned, and there have apparently been no issues with the topic ban for a year, I agree that it no longer serves a purpose. I support lifting it and have proposed a motion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the administrator who closed that report also concluded you were edit warring, so that comment doesn't seem off the mark to me. (Report 1, Report 2). – bradv  🍁  16:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I barely know where to begin replying to your remarks. Suffice it to say that if you are going to make accusations the onus is indeed on you to back them up with evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we need to know what you might have to say about the diffs now provided by Levivich. It does look like there were further violations of the tban that went unreported. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion

 * Enacted - KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Enacted - KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) As VM mentions, I blocked him for violating this topic ban over a year ago, and as far as I'm aware he has not violated it since. In my opinion the topic ban has outlived its usefulness. –  bradv  🍁  16:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I've mulled this over a bit and I think the risk in removing the tban is minimal. I can't really hold the more recent possible violations against Marek as the community members who saw them felt it was not egregious enough to report them, and I do believe there were, and still are, mitigating circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I think it's worth a shot but I echo Peacemaker67's comment regarding WP:ROPE. DS are still authorized in this area per WP:ARBEE, so if problems occur, a new topic ban can be instated under the regular DS regime. Regards  So  Why  08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I thank the community for their comments, and have taken them on board, but since I was reticent about the need for this when it was put in place and given the non-egregious nature of breaches (thanks for the discussion on those), I'm willing to rescind this <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>) 08:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) the history in this area of editing is too long.  DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Recuse
 * Comments
 * Comments