Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 71

Clarification request: Science Apologist topic ban (August 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Someone not using his real name (talk) at 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement Someone not using his real name
Arbitrator Cas Liber has declared here that the Committee has vacated the indefinite (extended from the original one-year) topic ban affecting Science Apologist. Is that the opinion/decision of the majority of the Committee? (Original one-year topic ban; Extension thereof to indefinite) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
@Courcelles, I think you are looking at Casliber's comment in isolation. It is because of the specific circumstances of the community unblock, where multiple individuals highlighted SAs work on fringe theory topics as being desirable, that the topic ban should have been automatically vacated. As far as I can see, Casliber is not referring to the act of ARBCOM referring it to the community as vacating the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user
Err, for the record, I made this statement as an editor. Anyway, moot now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Speaking for myself, I do not think we have vacated the topic ban on pseudoscience, and that it remains in place as an AE (not ArbCom) sanction. (I also do not see any real discussion of the topic ban either way on either the recent RFARB or AN unblock discussions.) (Thus subject to the AE routes of appeal, which are more numerous than for a direct sanction from ArbCom.) Courcelles 23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this is all rather moot by the imposing admin lifting the topic ban on AN. "The topic ban is lifted with retroactive effect to the time of the unblock. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)".  As he imposed the topic ban, he can vacate it.  So, DS remain in effect, but no topic ban.  Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the question whether the recent AN evaluation of ScienceApologist's block appeal would also, if closed in favour of the proposal, have vacated his topic ban? The answer to that is clearly no. The proposal was to unblock SA, not to unblock him and remove all sanctions from his account. A new thread should be started to discuss vacating the AE topic ban of SA's account. (It also occurs to me that letting a contributor back onto the project, then after a period of observation letting him return to a contentious topic area, is a reasonable and sensible approach – but that isn't what we are being asked to consider.) AGK  [•] 14:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the comment by T. Canens, which Courcelles quotes above, would render the question moot. I missed that because the original poster didn't link to TC's comment in his statement. AGK  [•] 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine history (August 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cambalachero (talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by Cambalachero
In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare (here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.

I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?


 * By the way, contrary to the misplaced comments of another user, I'm not requesting any amendment to the ban, just a clarification on the actual extension of the current ban. Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As for dates, the usual turning points in contemporary Argentine history are 1983 (end of military regime and return of democracy), 1989 (hyperinflation, fall of Alfonsín, and begin of Menemism) and 2001 (new economic and political crisis, fall of De la Rúa); sometimes 2001 is mentioned in conjuction with 2003 (begin of Kirchnerism). Those are the natural turning points, easier to work with than if we set a random date from out of the blue. I once organized Argentine history by periods and used the 1983-present period as the last one (see ARGhistperiodFooter and Category:History of Argentina by period), nobody ever complained about it.
 * I rarely work with the modern politics of other South American countries, only when there's some event in the current news that is so important that it becomes eligible for the "in the news" section of the main page (such as the death of Hugo Chávez, or the impeachment of Fernando Lugo), and my interest goes away once the news become yesterday's news. If the limit is set simply on the bilateral relations of Argentina at whatever administrations are acceptable to work with, that would be fine for me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Raúl Alfonsín began his mandate as president on December 10, 1983. That day the National Reorganization Process ended. When we say "1983" in this discussion, we are saying that date, December 10 of 1983. I hope this precision helps. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20
This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions for Cambalachero

 * 1) Do you have any date(s) in mind (to any degree of specificity)?
 * 2) I can see two possible opions, a cut-off date that is the same across the continent even that might not be logical in a given country or individual dates for each country that would be more complex to remember and administer. Do you have a preference? If so how strong (i.e. you wouldn't accept your non-preferred choice for $reason)?
 * 3) 1983 for Argentina, and no later than 1998 for the entire continent were my initial thoughts (see immediately above). Do you have comments on those dates?
 * 4) Do you see dates specified just as years (implied as 1 January that year) as working, or do you think an actual date needs noting?

To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur. Awaiting any further statements containing reasoned suggestions as to when that would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as Argentina goes, everything after 1983 (with 1983 being included) should be fair game. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a little specialised for me, so I will abstain and defer to my colleagues on how to dispose of this request. AGK  [•] 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The December date as suggested by Cambalachero seems fine. Just try to skirt away from that as much as you can and I don't anticipate any significant issues. The problems observed by the Committee were quite distant from the Kirchner presidencies, so I wouldn't anticipate any problem working on those articles.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification and amendment request: Argentine history (August 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Lecen (talk) at 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Lecen (initiator)
 * MarshalN20

Statement by Lecen
Clarification

According to "proposed decision" on the Argentine History case "[t]his dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America". User MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was thus "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces" (emphasis added). See here, here and here.

As far as I know, MarshalN20 was banned because he and Cambalachero had been using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. And these are regarded unreliable by mainstream historians. See here.

The problem is that since then MarshalN20 has argued over and over that he has no idea why he was topic banned. In fact, he has claimed that he was topic banned because he made a move request on Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance), which has no relation to Juan Manuel de Rosas nor to Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists. A few examples:


 * "Why is it that I have been stamped with 'tendentious editing' and 'battleground editing' supported by admittedly weak diffs? What made these accusations, and the attached topic bans, better than a simple WP:TROUT (warning)?" (see here)
 * "I would wholeheartedly appreciate knowing what it is that you think I did wrong and should not do again. All I ever hear back from arbitrators is a sense of 'you know what you did wrong'...but I honestly don't know what (other than my behavior in the move request) else I did that should not be done again" (see here)
 * " But, you were there, and know that the move request was filled with Brazilian/Portuguese editors... What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous!" (see here)

I'd like to see clarified: were MarshalN20 and Cambalachero topic banned because they used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources? If not, why were they topic banned?

Amendment

The proposed decision was published on 23 June 2013. Since then I had a hard time trying to move on. MarshalN20 hasn't stopped talking about Juan Manuel de Rosas and myself:
 * On 25 June 2013 MarshalN20 published a long rant against me on NuclearWarfare's talk page, where he also dealt with Rosas' article. Although it was a blatant violation of the topic ban, nothing happened to MarshalN20.
 * On 28 June 2013 I went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing was done of it.
 * On 30 June 2013 MarshalN20 published another long rant against me, now on Cambalachero's talk page, where he called me a "troll".
 * On 10 July 2013 User The ed17 went to the Request for Enforcement page to complain that MarshalN20 was trying to continue meddling on Juan Manuel de Rosas' article through indirect ways. Nothing happened.
 * On 23 July 2013 MarshalN20 requested an amendment to Argentine History. I made one statement asking the Arbitrators to think carefully before accepting his request.
 * On 31 July 2013 MarshalN20 said that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions about me (accusing me of using Fascist sources & sponsoring political proganda". The link he provided was my statement to his request for amendment. I patiently replied, explaining that he had been topic banned because he had used Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (who were anti-semitic fascists and whose books were pieces of political propaganda) as sources. He said he was not topic banned forever (which he was) and that it had nothing to do with the use of Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (which, as far as I know, it had). Nowhere during the entire conversation I was rude, aggressive or ironic. In the end, User:Salvio giuliano said that, for all purposes, we were both banned from interacting with each other. I gladly accepted. See here for the entire discussion.
 * On 12 August 2013 MarshalN20 replied to User:AGK. He wrote one long rant against me and again dealt with Juan Manuel de Rosas. Nowhere in AGK's message to MarshalN20 did he mention my name or Rosas article. Why would MarshalN20 mention both on his reply? Again MarshalN20 violated the topic ban but nothing happened to him. There is no excuse to attack me knowing that I could never reply due to the interaction ban. Even less when he did that to an Arbitrator. Regardless, many hours later MarshalN20 removed the piece of text that deal with Rosas article, although he left the part where he asked AGK to continue the conversation through e-mail. MarshalN20 also excused the rant against me saying that there was no "formal" interaction ban ("Salvio suggested that if the 'informal' (ie, suggestion) he provided did not work, then he would file a request for a formal interaction ban"). Actually, Salvio giuliano was pretty much clear: "please consider yourselves informally banned from interacting with each other".

I dont believe anything will be done regarding MarshalN20' continuous topic ban violations. However, I'd like to request a formal amendment for permanent interaction ban. And, if possible, to declare that MarshalN20 cannot speak about me anywhere unless if requested by an arbitrator or administrator. The same may apply to me if the Arbcom wishes. What I want is simple: to be left alone. That's all.


 * @The ed17: I never called MarshalN20 a "misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism". Never. All I said was that he and Cambalachero used Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists as sources. This is a fact. They never denied using them as sources. In fact, in the evidence page in the arbcom case both users argued in favor of Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists. What I also did say was that Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists were Fascists. Their books were written with the primary purpose of serving as political propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s. This is also a fact. Historians agree on that. I even sent two e-mails to Arbitrators written by the foremost English-speaking specialists on Argentine Revisionists/Nationalists.


 * And MarshalN20's long post clearly shows that he is unnable to forget Juan Manuel de Rosas' article and that he wants to maintain the arbcom case alive. --Lecen (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I would like to note that it is the consensus of the uninvolved administrators who reviewed the arbitration enforcement request that a mutual interaction ban is necessary. There is evidently a great deal of bad blood here, and I don't see interactions between the two without some disengagement. Salvio's informal warning was unfortunately insufficient to achieve that, so I believe we need an enforceable remedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
Should the committee accept this request, and I hope they will, can I plead that they make the interaction ban wide enough so that obvious skirting of it is actionable? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Marshall, a few points and a major question:
 * Close friend is a severe overstatement. I've followed this case because it interests me.
 * I'll ask you to retract your completely unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry.
 * I believe Lecen was accusing you of using fascist sources in your articles, not calling you fascist yourself. It's a fine line, yes, but there's a major difference in the two. See also "Nationalism/Revisionism" on the evidence page.
 * Are you trying to re-argue the Argentine history case? That's how it reads to me, but I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Marshall, sure, posts from 2011 and 2012. Cool.
 * and 3) I'm not engaging on these further, as they are off-topic.
 * Ah, I see. You should make a separate amendment request. This is for an interaction ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
I would like to request an interaction ban with Lecen as well. Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20
I'll start by writing that this whole subject has turned into a ridiculously childish situation. The last time I recall being in this position was back in grade school when me and a kid argued over watering plant seeds (science project), and even that situation was less silly than this matter between Lecen and me. Above you can interpret from Lecen's point of view that I am as evil and manipulative as Darth Sidious. Yet, his argumentation (premises and results) is filled with misguided assumptions and erroneous conclusions. My answer to them: The enforcement board dismissed all of his claims as unfounded or exaggerated. Yet, it should come as no surprise that Lecen continues carrying the stick, and continues accusing me of being a misogynist propagandist, supporter of fascism and anti-Semitism, and mastermind meatpuppeteer. He has already been told various times to stop, but he continues with these accusations. But, this is to be expected because, in Lecen's view, he is the "good guy" who is doing nothing wrong. When his close friend User:The ed17 files a report against me (despite Ed has no relation whatsoever to this case), it's obviously not meatpuppetry. When Lecen accuses me of being a Fascist propagandist, that obviously is not an insult. And, when I respond to any of his aggressions, I am obviously ranting. So, the "logic" here is pretty black-and-white.

Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 1) My understanding of the ARBCOM ruling is that I was topic banned due to "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". The diffs used to justify the position all come from my edits in the article on the Paraguayan War. As I expressed in AGK's talk page (see ), I understand what I did wrong in the move request and have repeatedly expressed regret for my actions. However, I also point out that not only did this move request take place over a year ago (February 2012), but that at the time I was also unaware of other options available to continue a reasonable intellectual discussion (including the move review board & the conflict of interest board). Lecen, however, claims that I was topic banned for the reasons he uses to justify his insults of Fascism, anti-Semitism, etc. This is what confuses me. I have never used Fascist sources in my entire life (although I did once read a book on Mussolini for a European history course), and the only editing action I ever took in the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas" was to copy-edit the material that was already in the article's introduction and "early life" sections (I never added a single source to that article). This is why I am asking for clarification on what else I did wrong (so that I may correct it), because I honestly do not understand how this February 2012 move request justifies such a broad topic ban ("Latin American history") and harsh accusations (tendentious and battleground editing).

Topic Ban, clarifications (Part 2) Yes, I took part in the talk page discussions that erupted into the "Argentine history" ARBCOM case. However, my position was simply that of being against source-censorship (per freedom of speech). Up to this point, I don't understand why the author's political leanings are a problem to the history of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas was not a woman (no worry for "misogynists"), he was not a Jew (no worry for "anti-Semitism"), and certainly was not a Fascist (the roots of Fascism, according to Wikipedia's article on Fascism, do not even start until the 1880s. Rosas died in 1877). Rosas was a caudillo (the "quintessential" one according to John Lynch), who acted like many other Latin American caudillos of the era. If there really was a need to distinguish "revisionists" from other authors, then that distinction could have easily been made in the article ("According to revisionist historian blah blah, [...]"). Not only that, but Cambalachero even provided a source that clearly stated that (at least in Argentina) revisionists were now regarded as reliable as the "mainstream" historians of Rosas (who were instead now being accused of purposely disfiguring Rosas). Regardless, I again point out that at no point did I add a source to the Rosas article. It was my hope that Cambalachero and Lecen could work together...but Lecen did not want anyone with a different point of view to edit the article with him. I have asked Lecen (countless of times) to show a single diff that demonstrates otherwise. Yet, he does not do it. Instead, he constantly associates me with Cambalachero in an attempt to confuse you (the arbitrators) into thinking we both did the same actions.

Actions post-"Argentine history" ruling Several interesting results can now be analyzed (nearly two months have passed) from the "Argentine history" ruling.
 * 1) Cambalachero has diligently focused on silently editing topics, mainly did you knows and Argentine current events.
 * 2) Lecen and I have been butting heads like goats, to the dismay and disapproval of many editors.
 * 3) I have turned my attention to the Falkland Islands article and have done massive improvements to it.
 * 4) The article in dispute, Juan Manuel de Rosas, is now largely "complete" (only two sections remain). However, what is particularly interesting here is:
 * 5) The lack of sources in Spanish. Lecen claims to know the language, but also has (at various times) expressed the view that "English sources are preferred over Spanish sources". (strangely enough, he does not seem to have followed the same "rule" when editing Brazilian history topics).
 * 6) This has led to a situation where, out of the 76 citations used in the article, 63 belong to John Lynch. This is not even counting "repetitions" of sources (most, again, being from John Lynch). My calculations show that, currently, at least 82.89% of the article is based on the point of view of John Lynch.
 * 7) Lecen claims that John Lynch is the best source available...but in the preface to his book Argentine Caudillo, John Lynch writes "Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo."

Conclusions
 * The current topic bans have not solved the problems of "Argentine history". All they have allowed is for a single user to take ownership of an article and practically fill it with the POV of his preferred author.
 * As I wrote to AGK on his talk page, much of this can be explained by the traditional rivalry between Brazil and Argentina. Having a Brazilian editor get involved with Argentine topics should always raise red flags (and vice-versa), much in the same way red flags should be raised when a Palestinian editor gets involved with Israeli topics (and vice-versa). Of course, the rivalry is not on the same level of intensity, but it is on the same lines. I think that the ARBCOM did not properly asses this rivalry when making their original decision.
 * The accusations of "tendentious editing and battleground conduct" were excessive. I have had the pleasure to interact more closely with many of you (AGK, NuclearWarfare, Salvio), and hope to have shown that I am not a "baddie" and have no evil intentions. In fact, even AGK initially branded me with the title of "Civil POV-pusher" (ignoring the "POV-pusher" part, lol). The point is that I am not a "battleground" editor and most certainly have not willingly engaged in "tendentious editing" (I admit that this could be assumed based on my behavior at the 2012 move request, but I have explained that my actions were a result of ignorance rather than ill-intentioned).

Suggested solution I suggest that the arbitration committee take the following decisions for this case:


 * 1) Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and MarshalN20.
 * 2) Place a one-year (or indefinite) interaction ban between Lecen and Cambalachero.
 * 3) Retrospectively assume good faith for my actions in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, blame them on ignorance (if you want), and diminish the claims as excessive and only requiring of a strong warning.
 * 4) Narrow my topic ban solely to the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas".
 * 5) Narrow Cambalachero's topic ban to all subjects directly related to Juan Manuel de Rosas.

The result of these sanctions would allow me to work on articles related to Andean history (my expertise), the Falklands, and Central American history. It would also allow Cambalachero to continue providing valuable contributions to Argentine topics, avoiding those related to Rosas. And, of course, the interaction bans would prevent further problems among the three of us. I'll add, as promised to Seraphim, that the interaction ban is strongly supported by several editors (see ). Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ed. I'll answer your points through the same number format:
 * Close friend is not an overstatement. See Lecen's talk page history search results for "The ed17" and "Ed" ( and ). Why would you lie about your friendship???
 * I haven't accused you of meatpuppetry. Please read the phrase under the full context.
 * Lecen has crossed the "fine line" several times. I have never used a single Fascist source on any of the articles I have written or contributed to in or outside Wikipedia.
 * No, this is not a "re-argument" of the case. I am requesting a narrowing of my topic ban, not its elimination. The current topic ban on "Latin American history" is excessive and unfairly punitive. While I indeed accept making mistakes in the February 2012 Paraguayan War move request, none of them were ill-intentioned but rather the result of my ignorance of more appropriate venues for discussion. I suggest a narrowed topic ban solely for the article "Juan Manuel de Rosas" because that is the true "apple of discord"; and, coupled with an interaction ban with Lecen, will surely put an end to this problem once and for all.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 04:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The requests for mutual interaction bans appear reasonable, particularly in the context of the ongoing acrimony between the parties; I will propose the applicable motions below. Kirill [talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary. T. Canens (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban
1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Kirill [talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  NW  ( Talk ) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added an enforcement provision, per below. AGK  [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 18:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Do we need to include an enforcement provision in these motions? AGK  [•] 13:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think that the standard enforcement provision would apply here, but even if it didn't, we can trust enforcing administrators to apply common sense.  NW  ( Talk ) 13:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I've added an adapted version of the standardised enforcement provision, so that the enforcing administrator cannot doubt he has the right to act. Revert if you disagree. AGK  [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but not enough that I'm going to revert. The motion is adding a remedy to a pre-existing case; that case already has the block provision in the Enforcement section. But both you and I have enough real work to do; this is a minor point and I will let it drop.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. I had forgotten we were proposing to adopt these motions on top of our decision in Argentine history, rather than as stand-alone motions. I won't remove the paragraphs I added because lots of people have already voted, but I'll bear this situation in mind next time. Thanks, AGK  [•] 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion: MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban
2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * Proposed. Kirill [talk] 10:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With minor modifications; feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added an enforcement provision, per above. AGK  [•] 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  NW  ( Talk ) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Amendment request: Locke Cole (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  —Locke Cole • t • c at 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Netoholic and Locke Cole not to interact with each other
 * 2) Enforcement of interaction ban


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetoholic&action=view&diff=571192188 notified by Callanecc]


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Unable to inform other editor due to interaction ban.


 * Information about amendment request


 * Request that the remedies stated above be halted.

Statement by Locke Cole
It's been nearly seven years since this case was before ArbCom and I think we're well past the point where our interactions could cause us problems. I request that the committee remove the interaction ban and the enforcement provision. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Netoholic: The precursor to this amendment request was ending up on your talk page and wanting to apologize, then realizing we still had an ages old interaction ban. Hopefully interacting here is safe. The primary point of our dispute has long since been settled, and without either of our involvement really. For my part in it though, I do apologize and wish you well. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Arbitrators: I respect Netoholic's feelings, especially considering what we went through. I'd also like to think we've both matured over the past seven years. I'm also aware that, in the unlikely (and really, in my view, impossible) scenario that he and I were to "lock horns" again over something, this committee would be within its rights to re-establish these restrictions (and likely enact some punitive punishment for having put their faith in us). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The "Editor Interaction Analyzer" shows an exceedingly unlikely chance of interacting badly IMO. Zero articles in common in over five years ...  how long is needed? Collect (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic
I appreciate that some people might think this remedy has outlived its usefulness, Locke's statement is too short on substance for me to gauge what mutual benefit would be gained. I'd like the restriction to stay in place. I don't see any harm in leaving the status quo since it only affects me and him, but I also don't see any good that can come from lifting it. If Locke wishes to lift this restriction now so that he can interact with me, I'd prefer instead that he seek assistance from a third party and potentially prevent our mutual hot-headedness from becoming an issue. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Having read Locke_Cole's reply, I think it'd be fine to just reduce this to an informal understanding as suggested by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Could a clerk please notify Netoholic, as the other 50% of the interaction ban, about this? Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Received notice, and thank you. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Well, if Netoholic is also okay with the i-ban going, I wouldn't stand in your way. Probably best now to see what they have to say,  Roger Davies  talk
 * @Locke Cole: we have Netoholic's answer now. I'd likely oppose removing the i-ban.  Roger Davies  talk 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Absent an objection from Netoholic, I too would agree to lifting the interaction ban. Risker (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has there been any interaction (under the "necessary dispute resolution" exemption to interaction bans) between the subjects? Are they likely to interact if we vacate the ban, and do they work on similar articles and topics? AGK  [•] 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline at this time. AGK  [•] 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect answered you (I moved the commenting out tags to make Collect's statement visible). Given that Netoholic has only made 18 edits this year, and their last 50 edits go back to 2006, I think lifting the interaction ban is OK after a reasonable waiting period (2 weeks?), and on the understanding that Netoholic can reopen this amendment request if they have any objections when they see the message left on their talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Netoholic for your statement. The irony as I see it is that being under an interaction ban requires that editor to remember this and thus (in a way) keeping thinking about an editor they may be trying to forget about. Surely a situation like this is ideally suited for voluntary and informal avoidance of each other, like many editors do every day? There should be some way to downgrade formal interaction bans to informal avoiding, with the option to reinstate a formal interaction ban if that becomes necessary. Would both of you (Netoholic and Locke Cole) agree to downgrade this from a formal restriction to an informal one? If not, then the interaction ban should probably stay in place, but you should both try and see a way for this to be lifted eventually so you can both co-exist without having to carefully avoid each other. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that Netoholic has opposed removing the IBAN, I need a good reason to support lifting the restriction. And "it's been 7 years" is not one. So,, why would you like to have the IBAN lifted? Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interactions bans do not prevent positive editing. The terms of a ban are to prevent users from talking about or to each other. They can still edit the same articles providing they do not revert each other. As such, with one party still keen on the other not interacting with them, and the requesting party not putting forward a reasonable rationale for the ban to be lifted, I see no strong reason to lift the ban. It is helpful when considering lifting interaction bans if both parties had patched up their differences, possibly through an independent third party. Please ping me if either party makes a statement that may alter matters.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hard-pressed to imagine any sanction that needs to last for longer than seven years, so I would support lifting the sanction, emphasizing to both parties that this would basically be a symbolic action (reflecting the absence of any recent problems) more than anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion

 * The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems.
 * Support:
 * Consistent with the discussion above and subject to the comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the interaction ban being reinstated. AGK  [•] 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

This request is about the following template found on many talk pages for articles and lists related to pseudoscience: Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Initiated by  IRWolfie- (talk) at 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by IRWolfie-
This banner is being used on article talk pages to imply that the arbitration committee has made rulings about content; i.e that the arbitration committee makes content decisions. Personally I was of the opinion that these were not rulings and not guidelines, merely foundational statements indicating some principals but with no binding or weight attached to them with respect to content decisions.

Examples of usage:
 * "... we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. ..."
 * This discussion where the ArbCom principles are used to imply content decisions:
 * The specific examples given in the principles have been used to justify arguments about content decisions and the implied ability ArbCom has to make such content decisions despite these content decisions being outside the scope of ARBCOM.

Can ArbCom clarify what their 2006 principles are meant to indicate and whether they establish or merely align with (in 2006 anyway) content policy and guidelines i.e Are ArbCom making content decisions despite this being out of scope (Scope of Arbitration: "it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"),"), and have they in the past?

Depending on the response, ArbCom may wish to remove wording which implies content decisions, particularly with respect to the specific examples. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Barney, who/what are you quoting when you say: "not discussing individual content". ArbCom can make no content rules at all whether for individual cases or not, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey, the specific articles you describe, such as astrology and parapsychology do receive advocates who attempt to push their views. For example on the astrology article there was an extremely large amount of disruption during a period ranging from last year to 2 years ago Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99 Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118. Calling the main articles of very notable pseudoscience topics, which have many related derivative articles (at least ~500 astrology articles) and their own wikiprojects "ancillary" seems a bit strange, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
I'm not sure what to make of this request because there are two separate, though related issues at the article in question, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The first is whether ArbCom can make content decisions and whether this is an example of that. I'm in agreement with IRWolfie- that ArbCom cannot make content decisions.  I'm undecided on whether this is an example of this.
 * 2) The second issue is whether this text should be in the header instructions on the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience talk page. IRWolfie- has WP:BOLDly removed these instructions.  Two editors, me and BullRangifer have objected.  This text - regardless of its origin - has long standing consensus and should not be removed without consensus.  I think that the principles outlined by ArbCom are sound and should stay in the header instructions.  It doesn't matter to me whether ArbCom wrote them or somebody else.  Its authorship is irrelevant.  To make an analogy, it doesn't matter Shakespeare actually wrote Hamlet or somebody else; Hamlet would still be a great play.  I want to be sure to make a point of this, that regardless of what ArbCom decides on issue #1, it in no way affects issue #2.
 * BTW, I just noticed that these header instructions are also on WP:FRINGE's talk page (albeit with slightly different wording/formatting). While I realize that talk page instructions on a Wikipedia policy/guideline is not "official" policy/guideline, it does indicate to me that these instructions have community support, and therefore should stay.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was bold and implemented the suggestion by Roger Davies. AQFK (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
I have no problem with the template outlining the ArbCom decision about how to deal with pseudoscience. While in the end it is the community which makes decisions, we have chosen to use the ArbCom to step in when intractable problems arise, and it's best to abide by their decision. In this case it involved a type of content decision, but one that does not override RS. Their decision was more of a method for preventing the chaos and abuse which was a serious problem at the time, than a content decision. Using the four groupings for encyclopedic format is actually very wise and avoids problems. While the four groups aren't strictly "demarcations" in the Demarcation problem sense, they are very closely related to it. For practical "encyclopedic format" purposes we can still use them for "categorization" or "no categorization" because RS is another matter entirely. We must use RS for ALL content anyway, regardless of group.

One thing really cool about the template is how it stopped the chaos which reigned before the decision. If we stop following that advice, we ruin the delicate balance which has existed for several years, and open the Pandora's box which ArbCom closed and unleash some awful times of disruption. "If it's not broken, don't fix it," and it's not really broken, when we understand the purpose of the template and the ArbCom decision.

I understand how the itch (to categorically state that some nonsense "is" pseudoscience) demands to be scratched (I feel it too... ), but I think we need to resist that urge except in clear cases where the RS are clearly and dominantly of that opinion. We can still satisfy that itch for certain types of clear nonsense using groupings 1 & 2. Otherwise we can still document what RS say, including mentioning that some sources consider a subject to be pseudoscience, without including the article in Category:Pseudoscience. The ArbCom decision (group 3) still allows for that. Group 4 prevents the abuse by pushers of pseudoscience (pseudoskeptics) who insist on trying to sneak their fringe POV into mainstream articles about well established science. Group 4 prevents them from adding their fringe POV that a mainstream science subject is pseudoscience when it clearly is not.

So I support use of the template on relevant articles and lists, as well as following the good ArbCom decision. It's value has been proven now for several years. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taken the comments and suggestions found here and below into account and have sought to improve the template with some tweaks. So far it's actually been a box, which appears in slightly different version across many talk pages, so I've created a new template for the purpose:

  produces this:

ArbComPseudoscience

You are all welcome to go to the talk page where we can seek further improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that I have included AGK's suggestion below: "The reminder notice seems acceptable to me, and does not seem like it implies this committee has "ruled on content" in the area of pseudoscience. At most, the notice could be qualified by changing the first sentence so it reads "issued several rulings (which may be helpful to editors of this article)" – thus making clear that the principles are not enforceable pieces of quasi-policy."


 * Now it reads: "guidelines and several rulings which may be helpful to editors." Good advice is always welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Roger. "Guidelines" has also been substituted for "rulings". Definitely improvements. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I fear you fail to understand the purpose of the template. It is a guide for editors, and for those who come to those articles to push a fringe POV it can serve as a heads up. That happens quite often. If you will read my edit summaries, you will see that the talk pages where I placed the template are articles which are main articles for subjects in Category:Pseudoscience or main articles for some of its subcategories. It has nothing to do with whether an article is favorable toward or advocates pseudoscientific ideas, only that it is closely related to them, closely enough that the articles have been placed under the PSI category tree. If they should be removed from the category, deal with that in the appropriate place, not here.

You mention Astrology and Parapsychology as if I shouldn't have placed the template there, but those are classic examples of pseudoscience, and are correctly placed in the PSI category. If the template belongs anywhere, it's there, and your objection proves my point. ArbCom even used astrology as an example of something "Generally considered pseudoscience" - "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." ArbCom thought it was a good idea, and the community has totally accepted their good judgment in the matter.

If I went too far in some cases, it is only because an article is possibly miscategorized, and that's not my fault. I was not indiscriminately spamming the template. I have acted in complete good faith. As I explained at Talk:Flat Earth, categorization might be the issue there, but we also know that belief in a flat earth is a pseudoscientific idea. We know that the category tree structure is at times confusing and inconsistently applied, so this could be an issue, and it should be discussed there, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve, I see you have commented at Talk:Flat Earth. That's good. The issue of sanctions only comes into play if an editor starts pushing fringe POV or is disruptive in such attempts. Otherwise there is nothing to fear. I have many times seen otherwise peaceful articles suddenly become hotbeds of disruption because of fringe POV pushers who seek to include pseudoscientific ideas or shift the focus of an otherwise neutral presentation so it favors a PSI POV. That's when ANY admin can point to the sanctions (and editors who see the template have been forewarned...) and give a clear warning. If that warning is ignored, the hammer has fallen many times. The sanctions are applied extremely BROADLY, even on subjects not directly related to PSI, but related to medical and scientific fringe ideas. So, to sum this up, it has nothing to do with the state of the article, but to editor behavior, even on the most peaceful and uncontroversial articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Steve, regarding the discretionary sanctions link, that link wasn't originally part of the box, but was a separate template which nearly always accompanied it. Since they belong together, I just combined them, and in fact simply included the template to the existing sanctions template which I did not create. It was created by ArbCom member NuclearWarfare. It is a milder version than another one which is often used:


 * I could have included that one, but I didn't. That one has been used on article talk pages as a general notice and on editor talk pages as a personal warning. Actually that one is more explanatory and should clear up your misunderstandings. It shows that the sanctions are clearly directed at user behavior in editing and commenting, and not at the exact article content. The content can be totally uncontroversial. If you had been here as long as many of us and been as involved in these subject, you would have known this. I chose NuclearWarfare's smaller template which mentions the article and users can follow the links if they choose.


 * Note that I have not created any of these boxes/templates, including the present one under discussion. I have only taken a widely used box and made it a template because editors who had no understanding of the ArbCom decision were making unfortunate tweaks. Now, after these discussions, I have replaced the box with the template which has been tweaked and greatly improved according to the suggestions here, and in some cases added it to some other articles which I thought would need it. In those cases, if it's not appropriate, we can remove the template, but the article should also be removed from the category, and that's a more serious matter. Again, I have not placed those articles in the category, so your wrath is still misplaced.


 * If having that sanctions link disturbs you so much, why don't you get ArbCom to drop the idea of sanctions entirely. You seem to have more of a beef with them than with me, but are making me the subject of your wrath. The community has been fine with the ArbCom decisions for many years, and the instructions and sanctions have served us very well. You seem to fail to understand the history here and rolling back this progress would lead to unfortunate consequences. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Barney the barney barney

 * 1) I don't see a problem with the arbcom "not discussing individual content", because the banner text doesn't do this either, and is general in nature.
 * 2) Quoting the arbcom decision is like quoting a legal precedent.  The new case needn't have exactly the same circumstances as previous case, but a good lawyer involved in the new case should be aware of the previous case, and if appropriate make reference to them.  This stops us having the same conversation over and over again.
 * 3) Fringe topics are not for either (1) new editors (who do not understand the policies or how they're implemented) or (2) the feint-hearted (this perhaps ought not to be the case, but we have to deal with the reality not the ideology).  A banner that makes this clear is helpful to anyone who falls into either of these categories. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
One comment: in the template, the link "several rulings" is very outdated. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that with SteveMcCluskey that the template should only be in articles where there have been problems. Otherwise, it looks like we are trying to dictate how editing should be done. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
@Risker -- you're correct. The internet has trained folks not to read banners banners are invisible NE Ent 02:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SteveMcCluskey
I am a bit disturbed that in the past few days this template has been applied to many articles that discuss pseudoscientific beliefs in an objective, historical, fashion without any advocacy for these beliefs. I came across this problem at the article Flat Earth but soon found that User:BullRangifer is applying it broadly to a large number of solid, historically based, articles, among them Astrology, Parapsychology, and many others.

The focus of Wikipedia's concern with pseudoscience is with the advocacy of marginal (often original) scientific theories. On the other hand, objective discussions of pseudoscientific beliefs have had a long tradition of being allowed in Wikipedia, ever since Jimmy Wales's comment, which is still quoted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research" (my emphasis). Such ancillary articles have a legitimate place in Wikipedia and should not be arbitrarily labeled as being under discretionary sanctions, as the template does. This is especially the case since discretionary sanctions are only to be exercised under limited circumstances. In particular, the ArbCom Procedures for discretionary sanctions specify that:
 * 4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
 * 5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;

I recommend that either this template be disapproved or that the ArbCom provide appropriate guidelines as to when and where it should be used. In particular, it seems to have no place in objective, historical discussions of pseudoscientific practices. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply to Brangifer: The template as it stands is seriously misleading. It says "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions."  That can be read either to mean that the article has already been placed under discretionary sanctions or that it may be placed under discretionary sanctions in the future.  In particular, I note that according to ArbCom procedures quoted above, warnings concerning sanctions must "identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways".


 * This template has been preemptively inserted in the talk pages of a wide range of articles, apparently without reading them or their talk pages but solely on the basis of the categories in which these articles have been placed. In these cases no misconduct has been identified, but the warning reflects the editor's concern lest "otherwise peaceful articles suddenly become hotbeds of disruption because of fringe POV pushers who ... shift the focus of an otherwise neutral presentation so it favors a PSI POV."  Placing such a sanctions warning on otherwise solid historical article is a glaring example of instruction creep, and seems to be in itself disruptive of otherwise peaceful articles.  It seems more likely to stir up problems than to quell them.


 * I consider that such sanctions warnings should only be posted on talk pages of articles that have, in fact, demonstrated problems in advancing a pseudoscientific point of view and that the issuance of such sanctions warnings should be restricted to the action of an "uninvolved administrator", as per ArbCom policy. (I note here that Brangifer is neither an admin nor is he uninvolved in the disputes concerning pseudoscience but appears to be an advocate for a particular view of science.)  Furthermore, the template, if it is to continue, should make it clear that objective, historical discussions of pseudoscientific theories are welcome in Wikipedia rather than vaguely threatening editors with sanctions.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Brangifer suggests that my dispute is with ArbCom for introducing the concept of sanctions. Not at all.  My dispute is with Brangifer for creating and using a template in such a fashion as to widely extend the sanctions for advocacy of pseudoscience to articles that merely describe it.  He's right, however, that this is an issue for ArbCom to decide rather than one for us to debate.  I've posted my position; he and others have posted theirs here and at Talk:Flat_Earth.  I look forward to a decision from ArbCom on this template, its form, and its use.  Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A note by Roger Davies, elsewhere on this page, has drawn my attention to the ongoing discussion of revising the discretionary sanctions procedure. In particular it proposes changes regarding alerting editors and placing edit notices on controversial articles.  Concerning notices on articles, the proposed draft currently stipulates that "Enforcing administrators are required to place an edit notice on any page which they have placed restrictions.… All page restrictions must be logged."
 * Since those changes will influence the use of this template, it seems wise to suspend its use (and perhaps this discussion) until ArbCom resolves that more general question. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply about the changes to the user warning template, Template:Uw-sanctions. Those definitely improved the tone of that template.  However, the concern that brought me to this discussion was the sudden on a large number of article talk pages of a different template, Template:ArbComPseudoscience, which is portrayed in the Statement by BullRangifer, above.
 * At the moment I am involved in a proposal to shorten and tone down that template, along the lines of the user warning template, Template:Uw-sanctions, which you may wish to look at. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A note on the discretionary sanctions template by Bishonen
There has been considerable discussion about the phrase "if you continue to misconduct yourself" in the discretionary sanctions template. People have understandably resented having that phrase applied to them, and for me it's always been a reason why I feel unable to use the template to simply warn somebody that there are discretionary sanctions for an article they've edited. Surely a mere warning doesn't have to be so accusatory? I was quite surprised to see the words "continue to" still in there after all the discontent voiced, and even in the putatively milder (?) version quoted above. FGS get rid of those two words. It would improve the template 100%, and make it possible to post it even on people we don't particularly want to scold and antagonize. Even better if we also get rid of the strangely stilted and heavy-Victorian-parent-sounding locution "misconduct yourself". How about "If you edit inappropriately on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks" etc etc ? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Principles are used to elucidate the thinking that underlies the findings of fact and remedies in arbitration final decisions. For example, if we topic ban somebody for repeatedly pushing a nationalist point of view, it would be helpful to state clearly that NPOV is a core principle of Wikipedia and POV-pushing is unacceptable. Principles frame the substantive components of our decision, and may clarify how policy should be interpreted in certain novel situations, but (as IRWolfie states) they are emphatically not enforceable rulings. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that the principles in our decisions can be helpful reminders of the policies that are particularly relevant to certain topic areas, even when the remedies and findings of fact have long since become irrelevant. I therefore have no objection to them being cited in a general reminder notice such as the one referred to in this clarification request. The reminder notice seems acceptable to me, and does not seem like it implies this committee has "ruled on content" in the area of pseudoscience. At most, the notice could be qualified by changing the first sentence so it reads "issued several rulings (which may be helpful to editors of this article)" – thus making clear that the principles are not enforceable pieces of quasi-policy. AGK  [•] 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It won't be possible to suspend the use of that template while we conduct our review. The review will take too long and the template is too widely used. In any event (ping ) my colleague NuclearWarfare [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-sanctions&diff=572866428&oldid=553680098 recently made a change] to the template that should reduce your concern for now. AGK  [•] 10:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The header seems a bit outdated and isn't really designed how we normally do things anymore. But while I wouldn't mind some good rigorous cleanup, I also agree with BullRangifer and AGK above.  NW  ( Talk ) 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The principles in an arbitration decision reflects the committee's interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines at the time the case was decided; they are neither policy by themselves nor binding. Principles adopted in very old cases, in particular, may well be overtaken by subsequent changes in the relevant policy or guideline. That said, however, these principles may be of persuasive value, and if the community finds the formulation in a principle useful, they are free to adopt it, but that would be the community's choice, and not the committee's. T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the header should be tweaked to "Arbitration Committee decisions on Pseudoscience", and abandon the "ruling" altogether? That makes it clearer that it's advisory. No view on whether it is desirable to add this template to articles.  Roger Davies  talk 06:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're done on this one; I'll ask the clerks to archive it.  Roger Davies  talk 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * While I mostly agree with my colleagues, the fact of the matter is that banners that densely written (even with the blue links in them) are a classic "tl;dr". The contents are fine, but I'm not persuaded that there will be any better comprehension than if the banner was reduced to fewer than 6 lines. Risker (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I would prefer such banners to refer directly to the appropriate guidelines and policies rather than via the lens of ArbCom - especially when the referenced ArbCom discussions are somewhat older than the latest version of the policy or guideline that was quoted at the time.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – SonofSetanta (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Appeal against a topic ban as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The imposing administrator has commented on this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SonofSetanta
It would be my feeling that the ban was imposed incorrectly because the sysops involved did not take me at my word. The detail of the complaint clearly shows I was having difficulty with a process, receiving help from others, engaging in discussion and most importantly, reverting edits which I clearly thought were vandalism. I made no alteration to the text of the article and my decision to nominate it for deletion wouldn't have taken effect immediately but would have required discussion which clearly could have resulted in another method of dealing with my concerns over the article. The situation wasn't helped by the intervention of an editor called Mo aimn. I believe his alterations were designed to invite reverts from me as he knew I would be under preessure and make mistakes. He wold have observed this from previous (unhappy) interaction with me. From the text of the complaint you can see that sysops and some other editors argued for a ban because I had been consistently disruptive since 2008 and should have known by now how to nominate a page for deletion. They claim I have hidden two previous identities to avoid scrutiny by sysops. They appear to ignore the representations made by the other editors who were involved and who speak in support of me being confused but discussing. I am accused of causing a "Battle Royale" over image copyright. This is far from true. I was accused of deliberate copyright violation yes, but after several weeks of activity was able to prove that I had never violated copyright but had made mistakes in the pretty complicated area of Crown Copyright on images uploaded in 2008.

The facts are: 1. I have not edited constantly since 2008. I had a username for 2 months in 2008 before retiring under pressure from edit-warring gamers. A second identity was created in 2008 which lasted for around four months. My current identity was created in 2010 but used sparingly until May of this year with only a handful of edits in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The truth is my editing history spans 12 months since 2008 with substantial breaks. 2. My issues since 2008 have always revolved around articles concerning the Irish Troubles and my unsuccessful attempts to edit out POV where I saw it. A dedicated cabal was roaming the wiki ensuring that all of these articles were guarded and kept with their particular POV intact. My opposition to this was noted and I became a target for "gaming" to get me off the wiki. It sounds bizarre but it has happened to many people who have dared to edit these articles with a neutral POV. Why don't I just leave these articles alone? I am from Northern Ireland and am of very moderate views. I also have a passionate interest in the military of Ireland, our police forces and the British Military. Why should I not edit the articles? In my opinion, after examining what happens and being part of it, the thing to do is to stay involved and to try and assist admins in identifying what can be done to prevent this type of gaming. 3. I am not guilty of copyright violation or disruption but this is used against me by sysops and those supporting a call for me to be banned. All I did was to stand my ground, discuss, learn and save the images which were tagged for deletion. Why is this wrong? 4. The most important point is that I was not disruptive. I tried to nominate a page for deletion. Several AfD patrollers came at me from nowhere and so quickly that the situation was developing whist I was responding to them on the talk page of the article, their own talk pages and mine. 5. After the ban was applied I adjusted the licencing on image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5_UDR_Record_Sleeve.jpg. I was not aware that such an action was a violation of the ban and pointed this out at Sandstein's talk page. Without warning I was then blocked. Was that fair? Summary: The real meat of the issue is at the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland#Tags The edit history will show me putting in headers including the 1RR Troubles Restriction before opening a discussion as required to debate the possible deletion of the page. I am experienced in 1RR and wouldn't have engaged in an edit war. My belief was that I was reverting vandalism and that can be seen in my edit summaries. The issue to me is that sysops are claiming I'm being disingenuous when all the evidence says otherwise. I think it has to be examined why an uninvolved user (Psychonaut), who is a copyright enforcer, came to file the complaint at AE and why Mo aimn became involved. Both of them excacerbating an issue which was by then under control and clealry needed no further intervention as an admin was already involved. If the admin didn't feel it necessary to file a complaint why did Psychonaut? I request that the ban be overturned and my name cleared. If possible the block that was applied to my user name because I did not understand that image pages were not part of the ban should be expunged. Only since May this year have I been able to edit at any pace on Wikipedia. My success in doing so had me feeling for the first time that I was a real and active part of the Wikipedia community. I brightened up my talk page for the first time ever by putting in colour and infoboxes. I want to stay as part of the community and I believe the outcome of my learning when I was thrust into copyright issues proves that I am willing to work hard to remain and be productive. Where I think the problem lies is that some editors still want to play games and sysops are too prone to looking for past demeanours to prove a knee jerk feeling that someone is being disruptive - that people like me can't learn to avoid being gamed. The central issue is that the content of an article wasn't the cause of my error. I was learning a new process, made mistakes, and thought what I was doing was subject to vandalism (for a short period). No credit has been given to me for backing down and following instruction given by other, concerned and helpful editors and admins.


 * I wish to correct the statement by Sandstein (below) where he says that "several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request". This is untrue.  One administrator was involved, the other three people who tried to help were ordinary editors who could see I was having trouble and were trying to assist, as is evidence on the article talk page.  The fourth editor who joined in was Mo ainm whose motives I doubted.  The "speedy deletion" request was never declined.  The tag was removed by several people, three of whom joined in the discussion.  I think Sandstein's statement is testament to the fact that he did not in fact apply logic to his rationale or examine what happened closely but rather based his decision (and persuaded others to do likewise) on the track record of the identity The Thunderer which I ceased to operate on 28 November 2008.  The previous identity GDD1000 contains only 1 block on 27 April 2008.  My current identity has been operated since October 13 2010 and I had little difficulty until recently with 1 block in 2010,  3 in 2012, one of which was lifted and nothing since until quite recently when I was (incorrectly in my opinion) blocked because I would not accept the removal of  File:The Yellow Card.jpg from the article at Ulster Defence Regiment.  I insisted the card could be the subject of discussion at NFCC whilst remaining at the article and as it transpires I was correct.  The file was deemed to be valuable enough to be kept and is still there, proving I was correct all along.  It was I who Cailil banned for 48n hrs however, not the copyright enforcer who made the error.  The learning curve I went through as a result however improved my knowledge of copyright to the extent that I am currently (and have been all week) assisting copyright enforcers in the removal of dozens of copyvio images and replacing them on Commons with correctly licenced version.  SonofSetanta (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to say that, in my opinion, allowing the same sysops who were involved in the imposition of a ban to conduct appeals, as in this case, is a flawed policy. My appeal was dismissed within 15 minutes by a sysop who had advocated a topic ban and by his comments it can be seen that the appeal decision was not a considered one but was influenced by opinions he had already formed during the AE case. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that a single administrator seems to have made a final decision here. Where's the discussion, the process? Does my submission not warrant comment

@NW - Thank you for your comments. Yes: in the event of my appeal failing if it were possible to allow me to continuing editing at Ulster Defence Regiment to maintain my goal for GA status I would be grateful. I have made this request before. The UDR is a complicated subject however and it has at least another 18 pages associated with it which deal with the 15 battalions as per List of battalions and locations of the Ulster Defence Regiment and also List of attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment plus Timeline of Ulster Defence Regiment operations. The ancillary articles could be raised to B Class at least, if not GA status with a comprehensive amount of work. Part of the peer review report suggested reducing the size of the article and to that end I have been considering removing the fairly substantial women's section here to an article which would probably have the title "Greenfinches (Women's UDR)". If I were allowed to edit in this area a topic ban on the troubles wouldn't matter to me because I had already (as the AE case shows) withdrawn voluntarily from that topic. whilst I may have the knowledge to contribute usefully in that area I find that I'm not able to find proper collegiate responses generally and would prefer to maintain a distance, even though my fingers twitch at the sight of some of the more glaring examples of POV and inaccuracy within many of those articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Salvio. In your statement you say: we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s), but that is exactly what I believe is required. The admins have stated that they based their opinion on the fact that I have been a user for five years and have treated me as an experienced user. If you read my statement above you will see that I contest that view. Even if it were true however it remains that some areas of Wikipedia are quite complicated and if one hasn't engaged in a particular process before it can prove to be difficult and need experimentation. I've always been encouraged to apply WP:BOLD and try new processes and I have learned a lot since 22nd of June this year when I commenced editing full time, something I've never done before. My editing history shows that I have made 4329 edits. Almost 3500 of those have been made since 22nd June. This is the only period since I first joined Wikipedia where I have enjoyed editing on a productive and collegiate basis without considerable WP:BATTLE taking place as a result of my edits. In my opinion this is clearly because of the absence of certain editors who opposed what I was doing on partisan grounds. In my previous identities the edit count of both equates to what I've done in the period June 22nd until now. It can clearly be seen from my interaction with other editors and admins that, for the first time, I can identify myself as part of the Wikipedia community and am behaving in a commensurate manner.

The issue at stake here is: did I conduct my editing in a disruptive manner and then try to be disingenuous in my comments, or did I simply make errors in good faith whilst attempting a new process ? Did the sysops involved treat my case on the basis of my editing history since 22nd June or was I topic banned because of what happened in a previous identity? Has my conduct changed from previous identities? Look at how I followed the guidance given to me during the incident. examine how I stopped reverting what I considered to be vandalism when it was explained how I should go about it. Did I change the content of the article or was I simply trying to make a case for deletion in the full knowledge that it would lead to a discussion on the talk page rather than an instant deletion of the article? Did I engage in discussion? Did I seek help from admin? (The answer to both of those questions is yes).

@Sandstein. You claim: SonofSetanta does not recognize that the sanction is a result of their own conduct, and instead assigns blame to others.  You state that:  {SonofSetanta} has a relatively long record of blocks for disruption in the "Troubles" topic area, under three accounts.   Did you not consider that I might have just made mistakes as I claim? Which would clearly fall into Don't come down like a ton of bricks. That's not wikilawyering btw, the essay is there for all to read and you cannot blame an editor like me for quoting it to try and persuade you that you've got me wrong. Were you simply blinded by the fact that the article fall under Troubles Sanctions, an area which I worked in since 22nd June without similar difficulty (barring the copyright incident mentioned in my statement which is not Troubles related)? Nor was my attempt at nominating the page for deletion Troubles related. I feel I need to point out my opinion that {Troubles Restriction} was created to prevent edit warring over content on Troubles related argument. Not to prevent editors from learning and employing Wikipedia processes. The Troubles is an area where Wikipedia desperately needs editors. It is a very difficult area to work in. You've just lost me from that area because the Devil and all his imps couldn't persuade me to edit comprehensively on the subject again whilst you, as my personal Sword of Damocles, are going to come down on me like a ton of bricks every time I make a mistake which isn't content related.

FYI, and for the attention of all admins involved in this discussion. I am a disabled man. I know perfectly well that my private situation has no bearing on this case or upon my work in Wikipedia but it does mean: because I am unable to engage in gainful employment I have spent all day every day since 22nd June devoting my not inconsiderable intelligence, education, life experience and skills to improving Wikipedia, largely in a very difficult area to work in. I had no difficulties prior to the copyright incident. Would it not have been more prudent of you to encourage and cultivate my input rather than trying to portray me as a disruptive editor and applying draconian means to curtail my editing? I made a series of mistakes very quickly. Mo ainm's intervention wasn't helpful - if that's what you mean by me blaming others. Your wrongfully applied sanction could well have driven me away from Wikipedia: is that what you want?

1. No request has been made by me for an investigation into Psychonaut's comments however, given his intervention and his comments here I think it should be apparent to all the he has an axe to grind and should be given guidance on how too extend good faith and to be helpful to editors like me who occasionally get a little confused over processes.
 * Ref comments by Psychonaut:

2. Admins should clearly be able to understand why Psychonaut has little comprehension of the difficulties of trying to edit articles relate to the Troubles on an NPOV basis and why they would lead to blocks or bans as "cooling off periods" when discussions become heated, uncivil, or abusive.

3. Psychonaut is mistaken. I have never been blocked or banned in any shape or form for copyright violation. The images he refers to which he tagged are still on Wikipedia with several notable exceptions: one or two which I did not wish to retain and three where I made an error in my interpretation of a Creative Commons licence. I accepted the deletion of those with good grace and in reference to the latter three, learned something new. I have learned so much in fact that, as stated above, I have been assisting copyright enforcers this week in the weeding out, replacement and deletion of dozens (possibly coming close to 100) copyvio images.

4. With regards to the incident at Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland he is again wrong. The editing histories show that I posted this message to Shirt58 at 13:55 after I had been reverted for a second time. I left a message for a sysop here seeking advice but prior to this had already begun to engage on the talk page which makes me wonder why Mo aimn made his revert of me at 14:55 when discussion had clearly been going on between myself and other helpful editors since 14:23 in the section I had started at 12:42 to specifically provide a discussion area for my deletion tag. Uncle Milty made a revert at 15:15 removing the tag again but gave an informed summary. The final tag which I placed at 16:11 was after I had been unable to list the page for deletion at AfD. After reading further instructions I was of the opinion that I needed to place {subst:prod|reason goes here} in order for the listing to become active. This tag was removed immediately by Mo aimn: his second revert on a 1RR page (a guideline he knows well).

5. He is again incorrect in claiming that I knew the ban affected images. If the request made to Sandstein on 25th August is examined here it can clearly be seen that I requested permission to change images ON the article Ulster Defence Regiment understanding that I couldn't edit the article page. At Banning_policy it does not state that images are part of the ban however and I had concluded that while it would not be permissible to add or remove images from article pages it would be acceptable to update the licencing on images which were already in the article. Psychonaut was quick to inform Sandstein of this mistake on my part which can be seen at the same link on Sandstein's talk page. Which led to the "without warning" block. After this I became convinced that I couldn't edit ANY images until it was pointed out to me that Commons wasn't included in the ban. I then created File:Ulster_Defence_Regiment_Crest.png and requested assistance from several other users before finding one who was prepared to replace the .jpg format image already on pages with UDR in the title. As you can see Psychonaut continues to try and assert that I am trying to circumvent the ban by editing an image into Northern Ireland Security Guard Service even though, as he admits himself, the organisation was formed post-Good Friday Agreement and therefore is not included in {Troubles Sanctions}. Although another editor has helpfully informed me that there could be a grey area so I have not returned to complete the formatting of the image but instead have asked him would he be kind enough.

Summary. As you can see the situation was quite complicated. I have said before I became confused (no wonder) and was of the opinion that the reverts I was making were outside 1RR because I was reverting vandalism (of Peridon and Mo aimn}, or as in the last one, following instruction from AfD. My edit summary here  after my first revert couldn't be clearer.  If the other editors had stayed away from it instead of creating the impression of WP:TAGTEAM I am confident that Peridon and I could have sorted my misunderstandings out quite quickly on the article talk page because I was seeking help.

I keep wondering why Psychonaut is following my edit history and making multiple complaints about me. If he thinks I am prone to making errors why then doesn't he interface with me rather than converting my mistakes into ANI or AE cases? Although he did state on the ANI board that he will never engage with me again. I am no longer engaging with SonofSetanta because my many weeks of doing so patiently and politely have led me to believe that it is futile. If I were completely incapable of making productive and useful contribution to Wikipedia I would have realised this a long time ago and simply left the site. The opposite is true however. The vast majority of my edits (and images) are productive, useful and in volume.

I think it's got to be noted that it was ME who tagged Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland as WP:1RR. Why would I do that and then be disingenuous about {Troubles Restriction}? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@SilkTork. Your point would be valid if indeed I had been making regular contributions for three years but I haven't. Between October 2010 and June 2013 I made less than 1200 edits. Most of them on articles such as White Island, County Fermanagh, Joe Dolan, RAF Greencastle (created by me, now C Class), Herbert Westmacott, Provisional Irish Republican Army, Brian Kenny (British Army officer), John Strawson (British Army officer) (created by me]], Battle of the Imjin River, Winston Churchill, Denis Ormerod (created by me), Harry Baxter (created by me), Imber, Lists of shipwrecks, Bill Bellamy (British Army officer) (created by me - B Class, listed at the Template:Did you know, 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars, HMS Dasher (D37), MV Princess Victoria, Black Watch, Viola Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster (created by me), Arthur Denaro (all images from my own personal collection), Tannenberg Memorial (C Class), Queen's Royal Irish Hussars (most images from my personal collection).

So, given this knowledge and the fact that I made very few contributions to The Troubles until 22nd June this year in this identity would you be kind enough to explain your comments regarding confusion and ignorance and poor understanding of procedures? Perhaps you could elaborate on how a poor ignorant soul such as me could have an article up for GA status? (see Ulster Defence Regiment, almost completely rewritten by me between June and August). I put it to you that you have completely misunderstood the situation as the admins who imposed the ban also did. I have uploaded 63 unique images on Commons since 13th July, created 32 new articles on the Wiki (over three identities) and God knows how many unique images, most of which I have donated from my personal collection taken by me during military service.

Educate this poor old thicko then. Why would someone of my ilk believe that a topic ban is the least they can expect in order to prevent further disruption.

Are you aware of the disruption caused on articles pertaining to The Troubles which led to DS being imposed after a very long and convoluted ArbCom case? Are you cognisant of the fact that tag-teamers roamed articles related to The Troubles to game new users (at that time) like me into making mistakes and getting blocks and bans to prevent us from removing partisan views from articles?

Lastly: can you see the annoyance in the words that I use when replying to you? Annoyed that you haven't actually bothered to examine the detail of what happened at Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland but based your statement on preconceived prejudices because I admitted to having the occasional problem with new processes? I respectfully urge you too to read Don't come down like a ton of bricks where it quite clearly states that: policies and guidelines are not the law and do not need to be ruthlessly enforced. You obviously haven't read a word of what I've posted in my defence or you would know, despite my manifold contributions, I've only really been editing Wikipedia since 22nd June this year because of the difficulties I've had in my two previous identities. I didn't know that editing articles on my own country, county and town would be so difficult in a project which professes to be as well run as this one is. My frustration at being defeated in my efforts to change that over three identities has been expressed on many occasions. Yet with all, people like you are able to post twisted and incorrect opinions about me whenever it pleases you without fear of repercussion, because you are an admin and I'm just a pleb editor. You use the block log to judge me without knowing what I, and others, went through to try and make genuine contributions. We welcomed the DS. We didn't think it went far enough and are very happy to comply with it. It has a flaw however: it can still be gamed and I fell for it in a moment of confusion. Read the detail. Go to Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland and see who discussed what and when. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad and T. Canens. May I ask what logic you applied to reach a "decline" opinion. Have you examined the incident in detail or is your response one of backing up a fellow administrator's decision? I have proved beyond doubt in my various submissions that much of what has been asserted about me being disruptive is untrue. Do you not feel that a deeper investigation into these allegations is warranted? Have you examined the incident in detail to see if my statement is true? While I certainly and very much appreciate the inclusion of an offer to allow me to continue editing certain articles whilst the ban continues I still maintain my innocence from any wrongdoing and that is really what this appeal is about. Don't judge me as The Thunderer; judge me on my achievements, input and modified behaviour in this identity. Is it not possible, in your opinion, beyond all conceivable doubt, that I could actually be telling the truth? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER - As per Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions:

administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit,

Has good faith been exercised towards me by Sandstein? Have I been "bitten" because I was inexperienced in a particular process?

I would like this to be considered please. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I refer to the rationale I provided for the topic ban in the AE thread that led up to the ban on 24 August 2013, and to the conclusions reached by my administrator colleagues when they declined an appeal of the ban at WP:AE on 26 August 2013.

The appeal does not address the disruptive conduct by SonofSetanta identified in these proceedings, notably, edit-warring to reinstate a frivolous speedy deletion nomination of a "Troubles"-related article after several administrators had declined the speedy deletion request, as per the evidence provided in the AE request linked to above. In imposing the topic ban I considered that SonofSetanta has a relatively long record of blocks for disruption in the "Troubles" topic area, under three accounts:

In this appeal, SonofSetanta does not recognize that the sanction is a result of their own conduct, and instead assigns blame to others. For this reason, the topic ban is still, in my view, a necessary and proportionate measure to prevent further disruption by SonofSetanta in this topic area. Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal be declined.  Sandstein  16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Psychonaut
I see that SonofSetanta's appeal contains a request for investigation into my conduct (though I was never notified of same). I had hoped to avoid any further discussion of this user, but as he seems to have dragged me into this one I'm not sure it's avoidable.

I endorse Sandstein's conclusion that SonofSetanta seems unable to recognize his own disruptive behaviour, and that it was this behaviour (and not others' reports of it) which is the reason for his current and past sanctions. This lack of awareness is demonstrated most saliently by points 3, 4, and 5 of his appeal:

In (3) he flatly states that he is "not guilty of copyright violation or disruption", though this is precisely what he has been repeatedly blocked for; one needs only consult his various accounts' block logs and user talk pages here and on Commons to appreciate the scope of the problem. I was one (but neither the first, nor the most prolific) of several users who tagged his infringing images for deletion.

In (4) he claims he was "not disruptive" in the incident that led to his latest topic ban, which flies in the face of his next claim that "several AfD patrollers" had to engage with him in order to get him to stop edit warring over the deletion tag.

Finally in (5) he claims his latest block (for violating the topic ban) was unfair because it was without warning; however, he had been conspicuously notified of the topic ban on "everything related to The Troubles" (emphasis in original) on his user talk page on 24 August. The notice made it clear that noncompliance would result in blocks. In fact, a quick check over SonofSetanta's recent contributions shows that he still may not be complying with the topic ban. He's made a number of edits, for example, to Northern Ireland Security Guard Service, who according to the article are best noted for their controversial defence of a post-Good Friday attack by the Real IRA.

I have no opinion or recommendation concerning the outcome of this appeal; I just wanted to voice my support of Sandstein's observations and to rebut some of the claims made in the appeal. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

 * This section is to be edited only by Arbitrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Decline appeal. The idea behind discretionary sanctions is that we trust admins to exercise their judgement in a sound manner; as a result of that trust, I believe that, when dealing with an appeal against a restriction, we should not substitute our own opinions to those of the admin(s) who originally imposed the sanction de qua, but, rather, we should see if there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the imposing sysop(s). In this case, the sanction seems reasonable and, so, it should not be lifted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline, after having reviewed the situation fully. However, I am always in favor of salvaging situations with long term editors whenever possible, so let me ask you this SonofSetanta: Is there a particular article you would wish to work on and bring up to perhaps WP:GA status? I might be willing to carve out a single article exemption for you to work on.  NW  ( Talk ) 12:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. Editors have been blocked for such disruptive behaviour on ordinary articles, let alone sensitive and contentious articles under DS; a topic ban seems more than fair, and no doubt has been given due in part to SonofSetanta's explanation of confusion and ignorance, as well as his three year contributions to the project. If an editor has such poor understanding of procedures that they engage in edit warring on a DS article, then a topic ban is the least they can expect in order to prevent further disruption.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the basic topic-ban should stand. I am somewhat more open to the possibility of narrowing it slightly so that SonofSetana could edit articles that are within his area of interest but unlikely to be troublesome. I know that the DS administrators considered this possibility and rejected it, but perhaps this could be reconsidered at some point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline per the above, though like NuclearWarfare I might consider a single article exemption. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The original sanction was valid. Decline, and oppose the attempt to refine this sanction that other arbitrators are contemplating. AGK  [•] 12:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline and similarly to AGK, I have no interest at all in carving out a limited exception in this particular case. Courcelles 20:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Race and intelligence (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Mathsci (talk) at 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * WP:ARBR&I
 * Extended topic ban of SightWatcher: ARBR&I
 * One-way interaction bans imposed at AE (logged by Timotheus Canens):
 * Instruction about reporting violations of interaction bans (logged by Future Perfect at Sunrise):

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * The users, and  are also affected, but are currently either site-banned or indefinitely blocked
 * The users, and  are also affected, but are currently either site-banned or indefinitely blocked
 * The users, and  are also affected, but are currently either site-banned or indefinitely blocked
 * The users, and  are also affected, but are currently either site-banned or indefinitely blocked
 * The users, and  are also affected, but are currently either site-banned or indefinitely blocked


 * Notifications:

Statement by Mathsci
Three users were given one-way interaction bans in October 2012: Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. An instruction was later logged by in December 2012 concerning the reporting by me of these users when I thought they might have violated their interaction ban. Zeromus1 was identified as sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin and their name struck from the list of interaction bans. I am not under any arbcom restrictions at the moment. Sandstein has decided that the extended topic bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher are also interaction bans. SightWatcher recently commented out of the blue on a noticeboard in connection with disruption being caused indirectly by the site-banned user Captain Occam. Sandstein is treating the instruction from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it were an arbcom sanction and has declared unilaterally without having consulted any colleagues that he intends to block me for two weeks for reporting SightWatcher. Sandstein has not sought input from any other administrator and has ignored the fact that he has been told that the original disruption, caused by Captain Occam off-wiki, is being discussed by arbitrators.

I have never understood SightWatcher to be subject to a "one-way interaction ban". That is Sandstein's own interpretation. There was a lengthy but inconclusive discussion of interaction bans in the request for amendement by SightWatcher in December, when he asked for the topic bans of himself and TrevelyanL85A2 to be lifted, as well as the two iteraction bans. has now provided some clarification at WP:AE. As an admin policing WPAE, he had originally formulated those instructions for me as applying only to the one-way interaction bans imposed on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. That has been my understanding. In those circumstances Sandstein's interpretation is unorthodox (in fact Cla68 was the person who suggested the instruction might apply ). As a result I find myself placed unfairly in an impossible situation.

Sandstein has made a number of errors recently by policing WP:AE on his own. He has not waited for or sought input from other administrators. He wants a rapid turnover even in complex cases. In this case he is treating FPaS's instruction as if it were a heavy arbcom sanction. I have observed the instruction. When either of the two editors under interaction bans has appeared to violate their ban, I have consulted a trusted administrator, e.g., by wiki-email. From memory, his last response was that although a post looked problematic, it was best ignored because its intent was trolling/baiting. It's fairly obvious that any such request would be made in private. No mechanism has been suggested for indicating whether any private request was made.

I have also recently been in contact with arbitrators (including AGK, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare) about ongoing and related problems created by Captain Occam. Wer900 has made public part of an email from AGK. He claims that that email gave him permission to start an arbcom case centred on me on behalf of Captain Occam. In his edit summary, Wer900 has accuses me of lying. On a previous posting on WP:ANI, Wer900 wrote that I am "the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths" on wikipedia. SightWatcher's posting took place in this context.

I have in the past made AE reports about Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2. SightWatcher was reported because he made statements about the conduct of editors who have been active in R&I (Mathsci, Mors Martell, arbitrators), when his own conduct had not been under discussion. Sandstein has decided unilaterally that SightWatcher is under an interaction ban with me. That is not the case. When Ferahgo the Assassin had her extended topic ban, we edited and interacted on the same pages Orson Scott Card and Talk:Orson Scott Card about how to find a neutral way of phrasing sentences in the last part of the lede. So there was no interaction ban. In my AE report I certainly made no mention of an "interaction ban". The ban was on making general comments about WP:ARBR&I. There have been three recent problematic accounts. I have been the main user to point out (in private) the problems with those account (Zeromus1, Akuri and Mors Martell). These have been a problem, e.g. Akuri's contributions to the Race and politics case and Zeromus1's contributions on arbcom pages.

It's unclear why Sandstein has chosen to interpret the extended topic ban as a one-way interaction ban. It's also unclear why, when problems have been pointed out, Sandstein has refused to seek input from other adminstrators, as is normally required. He has effectively treated the advice from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it had been a heavy sanction handed out by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Sandstein for requesting comments from all the other administrators involved in the December AE request where Timotheus Canens and Future Perfect at Sunrise formulated the instructions for me. Only Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate were under discussion there. The instructions have worked smoothly: it was a very efficient "are you being trolled?" check. In SightWatcher's case, where it is an extended topic ban instead of an interaction ban, there is the added problem that it's impossible to tell whether anything he writes in project space is by him or by one of the other members in his DeviantArt group. As Johnuniq writes, however,  the "are you being trolled?" question still applies. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added Seraphimblade and The ed17 to Sandstein's list of admins. ErrantX was trolled by Mors Martell in January about starting an arbcom case about me; and Sandstein was similarly trolled by Akuri in April. All these socks probably come from the same drawer. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. As far as banned users are concerned, A.K.Nole (Echigo mole) recanted on 24 May. And Mikemikev has at last found fulfilment on Metapedia. There was a slight glitch in July when he was accused of making pro-Zionist edits in their R&I article, but he got himself off the hook by linking to his postings on Stormfront. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on interaction bans The 22 Oct IBANs on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 followed their responses to removal of Echigo mole posts and have no direct relation to ARBR&I. On 25 July TDA requested an amendment to the R&I review partly based on my removal of a notification of a fake RfAr of on TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. After that arbcom passed a motion on removing posts in Sept 2012. An AE notification from the ipsock was removed from Cla68's talk page on 19 Oct. The AE request concerned Zeromus1 (later blocked as a  Ferahgo sock) and The Devil's Advocate. At AE Cla68 requested that I be blocked for removing the posting. The interaction bans were enacted at that point. The instructions were issued on Dec 5 2012 in a very short AE request following a personal attack by Cla68, for which he was independently blocked. SightWatcher was not mentioned in that request. I will comment on Captain Occam, proxy-editing and the extended topic ban of SightWatcher in private on arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
My quick reading suggests Mathsci asserts the following:
 * SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from discussing R&I or the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic: ARBR&I: SightWatcher topic-banned.
 * SightWatcher commented at ANI and Mathsci thinks that breached the topic (not interaction) ban.
 * Mathsci initiated an AE request based on the above and some other issues I did not look at: AE: SightWatcher.
 * Sandstein intends to block Mathsci for what is considered a breach of a sanction stating that Mathsci must refrain from posting AE requests regarding interaction bans without certain prior agreement:.

My suggestion would be to tell Sandstein that interpreting a topic ban as an interaction ban is not appropriate, particularly when Mathsci has been the editor who has probably done more than any other to protect the encyclopedia from the R&I POV pushing that occurred. Also, I think something needs to be done to make it clear to SightWatcher that no R&I topic or editor comments are permitted (with the standard exceptions). Finally, Mathsci must stop feeding the trolls, and perhaps the logged sanction should be extended to include just about any R&I-related report anywhere on Wikipedia (with the standard exceptions). The banned users will probably never go away, but others at the bad website will eventually tire of their moaning provided there is nothing new for them to moan about. However, the excitement associated with this current incident will allow the discussions at the bad website to bubble along for at least a year. The feedback cycle must be broken. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
This pertains to a currently open enforcement request by Mathsci, WP:AE. The question is whether Mathsci has, by making that request, violated a restriction imposed on Mathsci by other admins in 2012 directing Mathsci to "refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case". My initial impression is that it does because the wording of the topic ban applying to SightWatcher comprises elements of an interaction ban ("... from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic"). However, the wording of the restriction isn't very clear as to which bans it applies. I've asked for additional input by the admins who then participated in formulating the restriction. Procedurally, should we wait on this clarification request to conclude before taking any enforcement action? It seems to me that seizing the Committee of what is in effect an appeal before any sanction has even been imposed is premature.  Sandstein  06:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The motion to make the interaction bans mutual appears to me to be a reasonable reaction to the AE request at issue. I take it to mean that additional administrative action with respect to Mathsci is not required, but at the AE thread I've raised the question whether action with respect to Cla68 is needed because of their interaction ban violation. Additional arbitrator or administrator input at WP:AE would be welcome.  Sandstein   11:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SightWatcher
I have a question for the arbitrators, especially Newyorkbrad. When Cla68 requested arbitration about this situation last December, you declined the request "in the hope and firm expectation that it will deescalate rapidly." I think you should have known it was awfully naive to expect that. Other arbitrators such as SirFozzie and AGK had already pointed out that the current sanctions were a source of disruption, and there was no reason to assume that would change unless the sanctions were changed.

You say below that you want us all to stop paying attention to each other, but this is no different from what you and the other arbitrators said in December, which was not enough to change anything. December also is not the first time an arbitration gave these instructions and had it do nothing. Risker gave a similar instruction here in 2011, and that had no effect. SilkTork gave a warning about it a year later, and that had no effect either. My question is, many years does the problem have to keep recurring before you accept it will not go away on its own? For most other intractable disputes, you understood they required your intervention much sooner than this.

There does not seem to be anything I can do to stop being a focus of Mathsci's attention, because he's kept focusing on me even when I avoided him for months or for a year. His comment about me that led to the current situation was made when I had avoided him for the past 9 months. In May 2012, he was attacking me on Arbcom pages when I had avoided him and the R&I topic since May 2011, and he gloated here about how his doing this caused me to be sanctioned. My experience has taught me that if I ignore him bringing me up I might be sanctioned when I'm not paying attention, but also that in the long term there's no way to make him stop. If staying away from him and his articles could make him stop, he would have stopped when I left him alone for a year, or more recently when I left him alone for nine months.

If you think your "enough" comment will change any of this in the long term, please try to remember how similar it is to what you, Risker and SilkTork said in the past that had no lasting effect. And if you want something to change, please don't just keep doing the same thing you've been doing for the past two years, while expecting it to have a different result this time from every other time. -SightWatcher (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Could someone please either remove the one-way interaction ban I and other active editors have with Mathsci, or else make it two-way so that things will be fair and even? Otherwise, this nonsense will never end except with an ArbCom case. I don't know if Mathsci will ever give up his campaign against two or three banned editors, while he drags in as many other editors and admins as he can, until it's made clear to him that there are actual consequences for his actions. If you will get him to let it go, then this recurring problem will probably go away. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Enough.
 * This entire situation is degenerating into self-parody. I have studied the AE thread below, and frankly I find the procedural discussion of the history of the interaction bans to be nearly incomprehensible. And I am not asking anyone to help me unravel it, either; I don't see that inquiry as being productive in the least.
 * For a long time, the race-and-intelligence articles were plagued, and Mathsci was being harassed, by one or more banned users (not involved in this thread). Mathsci correctly brought the problem to various people's attention, and it was addressed. While I don't say the problem is solved, and it could flare up again at any time, I think it's fair to say it has been substantially reduced.
 * Separately, there is the discussion concerning Mathsci at Wikipediocracy. Much of it too is nasty, but the nastiest parts have not overtly spilled onto Wikipedia recently, and I hope they won't.
 * There has been a good deal of discussion of whether Wer900 or someone else might file an arbitration case on behalf of Captain Occam. I welcome Wer900's statement that he has no intention of filing such a case. I hope no one else does either; I can speak only for myself, but I would have no interest in accepting such a case.
 * At this point, I see no reason for Wer900 or Sightwatcher to be mentioning Mathsci on-wiki, and I equally see no reason for Mathsci to be mentioning Wer900 or Sightwatcher.
 * As a procedural matter, Sandstein is quite correct that an editor shouldn't ordinarily be allowed to open a thread here seeking to preempt a pending sanction that is under discussion against him. (Sandstein is also correct that the tone of much of the ANI discussion is awful.) Nonetheless, I will offer what again is my own personal observation only, which is that I would prefer not to see any editors blocked in this situation, but even more than that, I would prefer not to see any more of the situation itself. Everyone mentioned here is very, very strongly urged to either sign off for awhile or to go edit something productive.
 * Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brad's sentiment, but, since just saying "enough" hasn't brought about much improvement so far, I'd say it's high time we turned all one-way IBANs into reciprocal ones. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Salvio. I'll wait for a few other arbs to chime in but making the IBs mutual seems like a useful option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This ongoing wikidrama is an enormous distraction to the project's volunteers. I will support making these interaction bans two-way, and will propose a motion to that end. AGK  [•] 14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Mathsci interaction bans (Race and intelligence)


Proposed:


 * Support
 * Proposed. The language for the SightWatcher provision is different because the other two provisions were imposed under AE, whereas that one was imposed as an arbitration remedy. AGK  [•] 14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 18:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be less problematic for the project as a whole if interaction bans were always two-way. An interaction ban does not prevent productive work - it simply prevents users interacting with or complaining about each other.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: Scientology (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  The Devil's Advocate  tlk. cntrb. at 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Other remedies
 * 2) Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Peter Cohen notified
 * Sandstein notified


 * Information about amendment request


 * Other remedies
 * The restriction against me that was issued by Sandstein is lifted.
 * Log of warnings about discretionary sanctions
 * A note is added below my warning and Peter's stating that the claims of misconduct underlying Sandstein's warnings were invalid.
 * Furthermore I would ask that the oversighted edit I made on Sandstein's talk page be restored as it only contained public information available on the arbitration pages, a recent highly-trafficked noticeboard case, and a mention of an editor's previous username.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Note:Originally, I sought to appeal this restriction by e-mail out of respect for the privacy issues alleged by Sandstein, but was instructed to make the appeal publicly. My appeal below is a slightly altered version of that e-mail.

In the initial comment I made to Sandstein I noted User:Prioryman's previous account name was ChrisO (disclosed plainly on the ARBSCI page), pointed to a rather recent public discussion that concluded giving out Prioryman's real name was not outing, and described how the WP:ARBSCI case page itself plainly gives out Prioryman's identity in the finding of fact about him. The closest I personally came to giving out Prioryman's full name was noting his username. Since Sandstein had blocked an editor for the apparent offense of noting Prioryman's name and conflict of interest regarding Scientology in the context of that editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article, this was all germane to the discussion. However, Sandstein's sanction against me did not even come at that point, but only after I responded to his warning. It appears the sanction was imposed solely because I mentioned Prioryman's previous username after Sandstein's warning. At the AN discussion there was majority support, though not a clear consensus, for lifting the restriction against me. At the request for clarification several Arbitrators agreed that, in the specific case of Prioryman, even noting his real name was not outing and certainly not noting his previous account name. The one Arb who commented on my sanction directly said it should be lifted. Seeing as all I did was note the name of a previous account and point to public arbitration pages and noticeboard discussions, the underlying charge of outing is invalid. A majority of those who commented say the restriction should be lifted and at least one Arbitrator said the same. The restriction should thus be lifted and the warnings, having been based on a false premise, should be noted as containing invalid claims of misconduct. My desire to see the suppressed edit on Sandstein's talk page be unsuppressed is to avoid the appearance of misconduct that goes with having an edit oversighted.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Salvio, as stated, my suggestion is to simply note the warnings were not making a valid claim of misconduct. It is less a questioning of "unissuing" the warning and more a matter of repudiating it. A note to the effect of "the warnings issued to The Devil's Advocate and Peter Cohen are found to be without merit" is sufficient.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
To summarize the background from memory (without links so as not to link to private information):

I indef-blocked for outing and/or harassment by unnecessarily and despite another admin's warnings publicizing private information about another user in the course of a WP:AE request related to Scientology. I understand Drg55 unsuccessfully appealed that block to WP:BASC, and remains blocked. I also understand that the other user at issue, who may previously have engaged in significant misconduct themselves, is at the center of numerous controversies related to Gibraltar and Scientology (which are topics subject to discretionary sanctions) and also the target of off- and onwiki harassment activities because of that.

On my talk page, The Devil's Advocate and Peter cohen protested against the block of Drg55 and threatened community noticeboard discussions about it. To prevent such discussions becoming fora for continued outing and/or harassment, I warned both not to do that and to pursue private venues of appeal instead. Because of their misguided insistence, I also forbade The Devil's Advocate from engaging in public discussions related to this private information. Part of this talk page thread was suppressed by the oversight team because it contained private information. Nonetheless, Peter cohen launched a long and acrimonious ANI discussion which, as I predicted, did become a venue for outing private information, but did not achieve consensus about the appropriateness of my warnings and sanction. To understand how discretionary sanctions apply to such situations, I sought clarification by the Committee, and my impression of the tenor of their response was that discretionary sanctions may be used in the way I did, even if the misconduct by Drg55 might have been "only" harassment and not outing in the strict sense because the private information at issue might, as I then learned, have been indirectly acknowledged on-wiki years ago.

As a result of the clarification request, I wrote that the sanction regarding The Devil's Advocate could probably be lifted because it has proven unsuccessful in preventing the kind of problematic ANI discussion we then experienced, but that the two users at issue here, and others who participated in the ANI thread, should be warned that they may experience discretionary sanctions if they publish private information without compelling reasons. But I forgot to follow up on that - sorry. That is still what I think would be an appropriate course of action going forward. As for the warnings, I think they were appropriate and can, in any case, not be undone in any meaningful sense (though, if I may remind the Committee, we are still waiting on the result of your review of the rules about warnings and other aspects of DS). As to the oversighting, that is a matter for review (if needed) by the appropriate functionaries and processes, and probably not suited to onwiki discussion. All users should be reminded that our privacy rules must be taken seriously and that private information is not an appropriate subject of ANI drama fests, but that conflicts related to it should be resolved in the appropriate private venues.  Sandstein  09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Should the Arbitration Committee come to the conclusion that my warnings and/or sanction were in error, I'd appreciate more detailed guidance as to how I can avoid such errors in the future. For instance, is the problem that it is an inappropriate use of discretionary sanctions to direct editors not to initiate public discussions (including public appeals) related to private information, or is it that the information at issue (the user's real name and the former username derived from it), which they want to be treated as private, should not in fact be treated as private? Additionally, I'd appreciate it if the Committee also considers whether additional warnings or actions are appropriate with regard to Peter cohen's approach to contesting his warning, which include numerous personal attacks here and in the earlier ANI thread. I'd also appreciate it if the Committee could come up with a way to set up appeals against discretionary sanctions such that they are much faster and more conclusive. Because these sanctions are designed to be routinely and quickly used, we must expect that there will be disagreements concerning their application, and we should set up a dedicated, orderly process to handle these disagreements. Prior to this appeal, all users involved in this matter were forced to spend inordinate amounts of volunteer time discussing the same issues in an inconclusive and very lengthy and confrontational ANI thread.You should set up an appeals framework (whether before the Committee, the community, administrators or another authority) that has a defined structure, some degree of oversight, and is designated as the only place in which discretionary sanctions may be contested, much like WP:DRV for deletions and unblock for blocks. The present lack of structure contributes to the waste of our principal resource - time and attention - and contributes to an unnecessary personalization and emotionalization of good-faith disagreements that ought to be resolved in a professional and dispassionate manner.   Sandstein   07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , thank you for clarifying that an administrator may still modify their sanction even as it is being appealed. As I wrote above, I am of the view that the sanction can now be lifted. That is not because I think that it was in error (though like in the case of most actions requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, opinions may legitimately differ about whether it was in error) but because it has proven to be ineffective in reaching its goal, which was to prevent a discussion on public fora in which the alleged real name of a Wikipedia user was likely to be (and was indeed) publicized, in what I think is, on balance, a violation of our rules concerning privacy and harassment. Considering that several arbitrators have now expressed the opinion that the sanction was in error, but have not specified why (see my preceding comment), I think that if I were to lift the sanction now, this would not bring about the clarity which I think would be helpful in any future disputes regarding that name. I would therefore prefer it that, if anything needs to be done regarding that sanction, it is done by a Committee decision about this appeal that authoritatively determines (a) which if any identifying information about the user at issue is to be treated as private under which circumstances; and (b) whether discretionary sanctions may be used to direct that issues related to private information are not to be discussed publicly. As I wrote above, I would also appreciate it if the Committee would determine if the approach taken by Peter cohen in contesting their warning here and at ANI was appropriate and, if not, what consequences should ensue. I imagine that it will materially impact the willingness of administrators to engage in arbitration enforcement tasks if they must anticipate that their actions will be contested, without reaction by the Arbitration Committee, in the manner they were contested in this case, rather than in an orderly and disciplined appeals procedure. A reaction by the Committee appears particularly necessary because, in such cases, administrators face the dilemma of either having to ignore unseemly and disruptive conduct such as personal attacks, or (by acknowledging them) creating the appearance of bias and personal involvement, which may disqualify them from future enforcement actions – which may well be the goal of those engaging in inappropriate conduct. Such conduct should not be incentivized by Committee inaction.  Sandstein   16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your views about the matter. I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on Peter cohen's conduct any more than I already have. Could you please also clarify whether, in your view, the other user's alleged full real name should be treated as private? That is, I think, a more clear-cut privacy concern than the username, and the publication of that alleged full name by the editor I blocked was the principal basis for my restriction when a noticeboard discussion was threatened about that block.  Sandstein   11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Of course the warnings can be undone -- it's a wiki. We just go to ARBSCI and ARBSCI and remove DA's and Peter's name with an edit summary linking to the AN discussion. NE Ent 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 204.101.237.139
@NE Ent: the warnings cannot be undone in any meaningful sense because the users cannot be made unaware of discretionary sanctions. The word 'warning' is the confusing part. It was never meant to imply wrongdoing. It was meant to notify of stricter rules. At some point down the line, someone altered the warning to imply wrongdoing. While well meaning, that only confused things. Removing their names in the way you describe would not make a practical difference since proof that the user is aware of DS can and has been used in place of the 'warning'. As Sandstein notes, we are still awaiting Arbcoms official review concerning that knot. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Peter cohen
I had been about to exercise my right to vanish having demonstrated to myself the ability to keep away from Wikipedia for a month. This was as a way to disassociate my real name from a subject (Scientology) with which I have had nothing to do and with which I intend to have nothing to do. Sandstein's arrogant refusal to examine his actions and most of Arbcom's failure to answer the questions I put not once but twice in the previous thread about this matter on this page having persuaded me that I want nothing to do with a project that is run by people such as you who are willing to give Sandstein free reign to bully anyone who points out that he has made a poor decision.

The matter of Prioryman's name and previous id came up last year in this long ANI thread. The closing summary mentioned that "There seems to be or nearly be a consensus that YRC did not violate WP:OUTING.". In short the community's judgment was that calling Prioryman by his real name, as User:Youreallycan did before the ANI thread and which User:Drg55 did before his ban, was not outing. It follows that Sandstein's decision to use WP:OUTING as a grounds for banning Drg55 went against the majority, consensus or near consensus of the community.

Both TDA and I referred Sandstein to the AN/I thread. (Although Sandstein's use of revdel meant that I was not clear of what exactly TDA had done.) Sandstein's response was to slap us both with Arbcom enforcement warnings on a subject with which I have had nothing to do. He also slapped an enforcement action on TDA. How Sandstein can be surprised that I went straight to ANI as my next step after his repeated abuse of admin power as a means of protecting his ego from being questioned by non-admins, just shows what a fool he is.

Returning to the AN/I thread that I reference above, you can find the following piece of dialogue

Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that I referred to "User:ChrisO'' in my posting on Sandstein's page is of no import.

So, Arbcom, are you prepared to do something to retain an editor who has contributed a moderate amount of featured and good content or would you rather let Sandstein continue as your bully boy taking admin actions against anyone who points out that he has gone too far. If the latter, then please delete my user and user talk pages and rename my account to vanished user something or other.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that Sandstein still wants his pound of flesh so that he has some way of pretending that he was in the right. The thing is that if you act like an arrogant piece of shit whose immediate reaction to non-admins telling you that you've got something wrong is to slap them with warnings and sanctions without bothering to read the links that they refer you to (and Sandstein has previously admitted that he could not be bothered to read the threads in questions) then you should not be surprised when people say that you are an arrogant piece of shit. And the fact that I am not the first person to criticize Sandstein with strong language just shows that he is a repeat offender who regularly acts like a piece of shit. Having decided that Wikipedia does not reward me enough to make it worth putting up with Sandstein then I see no reason to mince my words. He has had plenty of time to apologise to The Devils Advocate and to me for not assuming good faith in our actions and that convinces me that there was malice in his. And as I'm intending to exercise my right to vanish I don't care whether Arbcom tut-tut me or not. So can someone vanish me, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
I don't see any reason why The Devil's Advocate's request should not be granted. The only question is whether Sandstein's warning to TDA was a warning or a notification. If it's just a notification, it cannot be undone since TDA is obviously aware of it. OTOH, if it's a warning, of course it can be undone. As NE Ent aptly points out, this is a Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
I just wanted to say that although Sandstein acted in error in how he initially handled this, to his credit he is now asking for feedback on what he should have done. Since ArbCom presides over WP's administration, you need to give him that feedback that he is asking for. Also, contrast the maturity of Sandstein's request with Timotheus Cannens' (TC) response when his administrator actions on the enforcement board regarding Mathsci's multiple conflicts with other editors, including yours truly, where he threatened to undo all of his previous enforcement actions if you undid one of his decisions. So, TC, should Sandstein do like you did and threaten to undo all of his previous admin actions if you guys decide he was incorrect? Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole
Just a query. It's still not clear from any of this whether or under what circumstances I may point out to another editor Prioryman's previous username. Do you think that should be made clear, or is it best to leave it ambiguous so Sandstein may sanction people, or not, at his discretion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
Lift sanction, delete warnings from ARBSCI page as a courtesy. Courtesy blanking is commonly done, and in this case it is fairly clear that the warnings were inappropriate: by the standards Sandstein applied, several arbitrators – who in their comments said the same as TDA and Peter cohen the last time this matter was before the committee – would have to be "warned" and logged on ARBSCI as well. Andreas JN 466 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hans Adler
I happened to see this during a long wiki break. I wasn't aware of Prioryman's previous account but found it immediately with my first Google search: An edit by the Prioryman account itself put an old barnstar with the old user name on the account's awards page. It is still there.

Sandstein has an unfortunate tendency to alienate valuable editors. He makes mistakes like every other admin does, but blows them up ridiculously by not correcting them unless directed to do so by a higher authority. (As the evidence is a number of previous appearances of Sandstein before Arbcom, I feel I don't have to go to the trouble of researching and linking them.) If he gets away scot free each and every time, no doubt this will continue. Hans Adler 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I frankly wouldn't mind if I never had to read another word about Prioryman's former username. However, the reminder that it's time for the Committee to post the proposed clarifications as to how discretionary sanctions should work is well-taken. Several of my colleagues have made this a priority task, though our attention has been diverted to finishing the active cases recently; I hope we can post something for comment soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would vacate the sanction and lift the warnings. The latter is a purely symbolic gesture, but this whole fiasco isn't worth losing editors over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To the extent Sandstein accepts that he issued a sanction he should not have, it would be in order (and would save everyone a lot of trouble) if he would simply lift that sanction on his own initiative. In case he has any doubt whether he is authorized to take that action at this stage, the answer is yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Partially grant appeal. As I've said the last time we discussed this issue, I believe that, in this case, the sanction Sandstein imposed on TDA is unreasonable and, in my opinion, an abuse of discretion. For that, I think it should be lifted. On the other hand, warnings, once issued, cannot be unissued in any meaningful sense and, so, in that respect, the appeal should be declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , as a rule of thumb, I'd say that if you believe an appeal against a decision you make should not be heard by the community, then the best approach, in my opinion, would be to refer the issue at hand to people who can legitimately make a decision and then say "the action de qua was taken as a result of evidence which we may not disclose" (basically, functionaries and ArbCom). Also, I see that you still think your decision was not wrong; frankly, I find it unreassuring that, all else aside, you still fail to see why your actions could give the appearance of impropriety: an editor comes to your talk page explaining why he thinks you were wrong, providing evidence, and you sanction him. Now, that surely wasn't your intention, but you should have considered how your actions could be perceived by an involved observer, particularly considering how serious an AE sanction is and how difficult it is to overturn it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely with Salvio,  Roger Davies  talk 11:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For information, the long-awaited draft update to Discretionary sanctions procedures has now been posted for scrutiny and discussion here. If adopted, the new procedure would downgrade all existing warnings to alerts (or notices) and thus remove the perceived stigma and finding of fault sometimes attaching to them. The discussion page is here. In the light of this, there is probably no reason to rescind the warnings. Roger Davies  talk 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed this situation in detail, hoping to find some piece of information that had been missed, but I must also agree the sanction imposed on TDA is unjustified. (With the same thinking as Salvio, I would however do nothing about the warnings.) I will shortly propose a motion to this end. In response to Sandstein's questions, (1) Administrators are permitted to direct appeals to be submitted privately to the committee if they think it is necessary. In this case, although we overruled your direction, I do agree it was justified that you directed TDA to appeal privately to the committee. Needless to say, the unnecessary imposition of conditions on appeals by an administrator would be grounds for remedial action and could not be tolerated, but that is certainly not the case here. (2) The community's consensus appears to hold that Prioryman's old username is not private information. I do not see any reason to object to that consensus, but at the same time I cannot think of a situation where it would actually be necessary to refer to his former username; all else aside, it is simply discourteous. (3) I do not think I see any actionable misconduct by Peter cohen in this clarification request. If there has been any elsewhere, and it can reasonably be attributed to frustration with what my colleagues and I have agreed is an unwarranted sanction, then I would recommend excusing it. If it cannot reasonably be excused, then I still cannot see evidence of it in this thread, so a better evidence submission would be required. And in any event his misconduct would not be a subject that falls under the scope of this request. (4) Recommendations as to reforming the appeals process are welcome, as Roger Davies said, at the Discretionary Sanctions Review. I think this answers all your questions, Sandstein. AGK  [•] 10:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion – The Devil's Advocate


For reference, the current sanctions ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=563487493 logged] at Scientology on 9 July 2013) against The Devil's Advocate (TDA) are:

Motion: The Devil's Advocate (Scientology AE appeal)
Proposed:


 * The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

Support:
 * Proposed. For the avoidance of doubt, this motion does not affect the imposition of future sanctions, and does not confer a conflict of interest on Sandstein with regards to Scientology or TDA. AGK  [•] 10:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 15:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments by arbitrators:

Clarification request: Sexology (September 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Sceptre (talk) at 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (clerk)
 * here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
 * here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
 * here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
 * here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)

Statement by Sceptre
Remedy 4.1 of Sexology, "Discretionary Sanctions", states that discretionary sanctions may be authorised "for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification". This is mostly a set theory/syntactical question: does the remedy refer to the intersection of the categories, or the union of the categories? My view of it was the former, but Penwhale believes it applies to the latter. It may be prudent for the Committee to state what its intent was. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
In sanctions, the word "and" generally refers to the union of the topics mentioned. Collect (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale
First things first: I have added the names of the 4 editors I notified of the Sexology DS and have notified them of this discussion (as they're directly affected by this request). Now that's out of the way: That wording really is not the best thing in the world. (As Sceptre pointed out, it creates different interpretations.) The thing is that the intersection of the two clauses... In fact, I'm having trouble pointing out the intersection of the clauses, because I believe that such intersection would cover a very limited set of articles that the committee would have named those articles directly in the remedy. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Daira Hopwood
First, let me state that the category of paraphilias is a rag-bag of things that were at one time considered weird or bad by privileged cisgender psychiatrists blinkered to their own prejudices -- including but not limited to:
 * engaging in common and harmless human sexual behaviours such as masturbation using a dildo or vibrator, or finding it kinky to cross-dress;
 * propensity to commit, or history of committing criminal acts such as rape and sexual abuse of children;
 * having a trans* gender identity.

Of course no reasonable person would consider these to have anything to do with one another.

[Aside: well, okay, maybe there's a somewhat larger than coincidental overlap between the trans* and kink/fetish communities. But for people who are kinky and trans, it's not being trans that is their kink, if you see what I mean ;-)]

See here for links to explanations of how deeply problematic the whole idea is and how it interferes with clear thought about any of the things it refers to, including this strongly argued and well-supported proposal to remove the "severely flawed" category of paraphilias from psychiatric diagnostic manuals.

It is therefore somewhat problematic to have an arbitration case that purports to be covering all of these things that have nothing to do with each other, especially if no-one is sure whether it's supposed to be a union or an intersection.

It's also problematic to add people retrospectively,
 * to a case they have had no input into, would probably have disagreed with the entire premise of, and that is entirely unrelated to the present discussion about WP:AT, WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY etc.;
 * especially if it is disproportionately trans* people and allies who are added;
 * and if they are added as a consequence of calling out transphobia in a debate triggered by widespread public criticism of Wikipedia policies that particularly affect trans* people.

--Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
While "paraphilia" might not be the most sensitive term in all situations, it is a term that is used in sexology (read the original case for evidence of this). The arbitration committee are not making a value judgement about anything. Whether it is a useful classification, or whether any particular activity should or should not be classified as a paraphilia are irrelevant.

t may also include: In more expansive language I believe that the scope should be interpreted as applying to: All articles dealing with
 * Issues relating to the topic of transgenderness; and/or
 * Issues relating to transgender people; and/or
 * The classification of activities as paraphilias; and/or
 * the classification of a specific activity as a paraphilia; and/or
 * The classification "paraphilia".

I am not sure whether it also includes My gut feeling is that the first of these two bullets is probably included but the second is not. Clarification would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Activities classed as paraphilias.
 * Individuals who engage in activities classed as paraphilias

Semantic musing by NE Ent
And is inherently semantically ambiguous and requires English speakers to infer meaning from context. For example, the narrator of Rainy Days and Mondays would clearly be sad on a Friday with precipitation or a sunny 23 September 2013, whereas the predicate of If You're Happy and You Know It clearly implies that joyous children lacking self awareness would not be clapping. Suggest using or where intent is union and the ''both .. and'' construct where the committee wishes to specify intersection. NE Ent 09:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Performed admin action related to this request, so recuse. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse. --Rschen7754 05:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * In my opinion, Penwale's construction of the clause is the correct one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * in general, I'd say that articles about individuals who engage in activities classed as paraphilias are usually not covered by the the current wording of the remedy, though I add the usual caveat that discretionary sanctions can be applied on the basis of the contents of the specific edit (which means that, in theory, there may be a case where an edit to the biography of a person who engages in those activities can be sanctioned pursuant to this provision, although, personally, I'd probably prefer invoking WP:BLPBAN). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Penwhale, Collect and Salvio.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to all, including the last one if it is a significant point of their notability and/or the point of dispute in an article. As an analogy, a couple months ago, I wrote that the only thing that WP:ARBPIA applies to in the Syrian Civil War article only where the article talks about incursions with the Israelis near the Golan Heights.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I agree with NW. Courcelles 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If in doubt assume the greater rather than the lesser. And preferably avoid inappropriate behaviour on any article, especially after being warned or advised that such behaviour is unwelcome. The community and ArbCom would tend to support an admin who applied sanctions where the behaviour was clearly inappropriate even if there was some doubt regarding if the article were under DS; but - conversely - there would be some concern if an admin applied sanctions for edits on an article which was clearly under DS but there was some doubt if the user was behaving inappropriately. It's the inappropriate behaviour we wish to eliminate, not the general editing of a topic - and editors should not feel inhibited from editing in a topic area that's under DS.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — Arthur Rubin (talk) at 04:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 8.1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision
 * Add a clause to note that Arthur Rubin is specifically allowed to revert socks of blocked editors on pages related to the Tea Party movement. If ArbCom prefers, it could be restricted to socks of blocked editors not restricted in this decision, or not mentioned in this decision.

Statement by Arthur Rubin
The "Michigan Kid" (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the socks) is blocked, the initial block not being by me. I've been summarily reverting his edits when I notice him, for some time. (For a while, I was reverting only edits in violation of guidelines such as WP:OVERLINK and WP:REDLINK; then reverting edits not obviously good; and now reverting all edits.) For reasons related to WP:ECHO, I often receive notification of his edits. (WP:BEANS suggests that I should not comment further; I'll E-mail an ArbCom member with details on request.) Now that I've found a "rollback all" script, I actually have time to do other edits while keeping track of this obstructive editor. If some of his edits touch on articles related to the Tea Party movement, and I am not permitted to revert those edits, I would have to revert that incarnation manually, as there is no "rollback all except Tea Party movement" button.

I don't see that this affects any other user; if ArbCom thinks otherwise, I'm willing to notify the other users. If it is desired to modify the topic bans by other rollbackers, I would have no objection, but I was given to believe that it would not be appropriate for me to make requests on behalf of other editors.

Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think a motion is necessary here. Banning policy and Ignore all rules provide adequate justification for reverting obvious blocked sockpuppets using mass rollback tools.  NW  ( Talk ) 16:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nuke here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with my learned colleagues, here. You should have nothing to fear, Arthur. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to inform someone (the Committee or the Clerks or the AE admins) at the time, so as to avoid (or quickly clear up) a possible sanction.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues. AGK  [•] 21:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Worm TT( talk ) 12:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as well. Courcelles 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)