Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 72

Clarification request: Race and intelligence (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cla68 (talk) at 23:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
 * Mathsci interaction ban

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

Statement by Cla68
On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. After it had been there for two days, someone brought it to my attention and I filed an ArbCom enforcement request.

It appears that during his Wikibreak, Mathsci investigated and found my organization of employment and place of residence, which he then posted on his userpage hoping that I would discover it. The person in the photo is not me, but does bear a resemblance to me. Although my real name is easily discoverable on the Internet, my employment and exact residence are not, as far as I am aware. Thus, I believe it would take some dedicated effort and time to find this information. I have offered to provide documentation to ArbCom showing that I do work for that small organization and reside at that location.


 * Note- Mathsci has previously been warned about digging for and posting private information about other editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
Anticipating this request yesterday, which concerns a now oversighted diff of a captioned thumbnail image on the fourth version of my userpage, I sent a preliminary communication to Roger Davies. Amongst other things it disclosed details of two short google searches, each on two terms. It was accompanied by copies of two emails to arbitrators. I requested that, if he thought it appropriate, he might forward these to arbcom-l, which he kindly did. I will post a detailed response to Cla68's statement here on or before Thursday October 10th. Sorry about the delay and thanks in advance for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the last statement I made to the arbitration committee, I mentioned that my main priority was to make an apology to Cla68 on this page; and that I expected a sanction. On Thursday I received a response from WTT asking about what kind of sanction I expected; and then almost at the same time a response from Roger Davies encouraging an apology by email. Almost immediately after Roger's email, I got an unexpected phone call telling me terrible news about a friend. That entirely changed any plans I had and occupied me for the rest of Thursday and the whole of Friday. Even while Roger was posting his motion, I received a long phone call from London about this; and then another from others In London while trying to compose this message. Regardless of the motion and these terrible events, some form of apology to Cla68 will happen. Even if Roger has changed his mind about an email apology, I probably will post a modified version of the message I sent to arbcom. I hope my statements about my temporary unavailability were not misread. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Below is a slightly edited copy of the message sent to the arbitration committee.

Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will in addition send a private apology to Cla68 further to the statement above, as Roger had suggested. A copy will probably be sent to arbcom. I have witnessed supposed disputes in the past on WP which have evaporated. That certainly applied in the case of Elonka, whom I later met with her father here in Aix-en-Provence. My computer account in France will terminate at the end of the year, after which I will be at a so-far unknown location. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have sent a message to Cla68, with a copy to Roger, which he may distribute to other arbitrators if he wishes. Even if this was sparked off by one single edit, sadly I have to agree with Carcharoth, Timotheus Canens and Newyorkbrad. In my email apology to Cla68, I wrote that I feel burnt out, physically and mentally. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
While superficially straightforward, this case raises some nasty tangles. I have no interest in what was on Mathsci's user page, and am happy for Arbcom to rule on whether it was (probably) an attack. However, if that ruling is made, I ask that Arbcom address whether off-Wikiedia provocation has occurred, and, if so, whether its extent should be regarded as a mitigating circumstance.

According to statements made by Demiurge1000 at AE ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=576060679#Statement_by_Demiurge1000 permalink]), it is very likely that Cla68 has been participating in off-Wikipedia harassment of Mathsci for an extended period. Unfortunately, as well being one of Wikipedia's highly talented editors, Mathsci is also highly trollable. Those who have been attacking Mathsci literally for years at the bad site know his weakness—indeed, it is because he keeps responding that they maintain their interest.

I support the principle that Wikipedians should generally ignore off-site behavior, so X saying something bad about Y off-site does not excuse Y responding badly on Wikipedia. However, it would be particularly unhelpful for this case to reward the prolonged attacks at the bad site when they finally provoke a bad response. If Arbcom rules that an attack has occured, rather than a project ban, a final final warning should be issued—much like the undertaking that I think was eventually wrung from Cla68 regarding outing a certain editor unrelated to this case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie
I understand that this involves non-public identifying information, but at the Enforcement request, I saw a statement that the edits were suppressed, as potentially outing. I think the Committee settled the interpretation of WP:OUTING in the TimidGuy Ban Appeal, where the intent was more judged rather then the accuracy of the outing information. Even if Mathsci has gotten the information wrong, the fact that he posted this information in an attempt to intimidate another editor, no matter what conflicts they've had before, requires a most strenuous response. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark
Though the irony in this request is mind boggling, mathsci's actions are disappointing. The posted information is not really outing - since no independent user could have specifically connected it to cla68 - but it certainly does look like harassment with its "I know where you are" message. That is definitely inappropriate and I can see that it is going to be hard to get over that. But, it is also important to recognize that Mathsci is a valuable editor on Wikipedia who, to some extent, is responsible for the fact that our R&I articles are reasonably balanced and neutral. Doing a great balancing job in a contentious area that is rife with SPAs and POV pushers comes with a load of stress, all of which has been obvious and very visible in the case of Mathsci and now this stress is manifesting itself in a bad way. Along the lines of Johnuniq above, I hope mathsci can present arbs with a reasonable explanation for what caused him to use such an obvious form of harassment and I hope arbs can work their way through this mess in a way that doesn't lose us one of our more committed editors. There are, in this world, trees and there are forests - we should try not to lose sight of the latter.--regentspark (comment) 13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Like RegentsPark, I find Mathsci's actions very disappointing, and note that they require some strong sanction being placed on him, however, I do not believe that an indef ban would be, overall, beneficial to the project of building an unbiased encyclopedia. I urge the committee to find another sanction, as harsh as deemed necessary, which will allow us to retain Mathsci's considerable contributions. I believe that a significant mitigating factor here is the extended campaign of harassment that has been conducted against Mathsci for years by multiple editors, some now banned and some still editing, which included on several occasions disclosing Mathsci's own place of residence. That Mathsci has not been able to follow the advice of others to ignore the attacks against him is regrettable, but understandable: such advice is much easier to give then it is to follow, as any editor who has ever been harassed or attacked by another can attest to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
I agree with Beyond My Ken about imposing an indefinite ban being problematic here. I would suggest doing now what was done with Cla68 after he was indefinitely banned. In that case there were discussions between him and ArbCom to make sure that after being unblocked, Cla68 would stick to certain rules to make sure we would not see the same problems again. Similar discussions can be conducted with Mathsci right now. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re R&I)
In cases such as Betacommand 3 (regarding user:Δ) and Rich Farmbrough much was made of the need to have bright line rules, stepping beyond which would result in sanction. It seems to me that Mathsci has been given such bright-line rules, has been cautioned many times about the need to observe them, and explicitly warned that breaching them would lead to a ban.

Iff mathsci has broken those rules, then I can see no justification for not following the course of action (i.e. banning him) that he was warned would occur.

It will be a shame to lose a good content contributor, but no one editor can be bigger than the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The block will be to protect cla68 and other users of the project from harassment in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
What is the purpose of the six month block, considering blocks are not punitive? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statement by Mathsci, but at the moment my view is as follows: this seems to be plain harassment of another long-term contributor, for which I am minded to consider an appropriate sanction on Mathsci – up to and including a project ban. Veiled harassment of this nature is utterly unacceptable. AGK  [•] 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Both Cla68 and Mathsci have submitted e-mails on this matter, but am awaiting an on-wiki statement from Mathsci (and responses to various e-mails from both editors) before proceeding further with this. Statements from other editors are not likely to help; if made they should be kept brief. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Confirming that AGK and Carcharoth have correctly described the situation, which the Committee is reviewing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Concurring with the comments of my colleagues. Also noting that the Arbitration Committee has at this time declined Cla68's offer to share his personal non-public data.  As both editors have submitted email statements and/or comments, and the matter does involve personal non-public information, I am hesitant to have a lot of public discussion on the exact nature of the content involved; non-party comment should limit itself to principles rather than the material that has been identified. Risker (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, Mathsci's behaviour was reprehensible, and his side of the story has done nothing to convince me otherwise. I'm still awaiting further responses to emails before I make a final decision, but concur with my colleagues that statements from other parties should be kept brief and regarding the principles rather than the material. Worm TT( talk ) 07:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, to be entirely honest, Sir Fozzie, this is not a clear case of outing; Mathsci, basically, put a pic on his userpage linking to an organisation and to a small community. As it turns out, Cla lives in that community and works for that organisation, although Mathsci never linked those elements to him (basically, Cla was outed by his own public reaction which was something I wanted to avoid and so I suppressed the diff on Mathsci's userpage containing the image and the caption). So, as I said, this is not really a case of outing, but rather of harassment ("I know where you live and who you work for") and no amount of off-wiki harassment should ever justify such an action. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores. That said, I'm still waiting for Mathsci's reply before deciding what to do.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A non-involved admin could have blocked Mathsci for this incident, and would have been supported. However, given the circumstances and Mathsci's history, it is appropriate it has come to ArbCom to deal with. I think by now it is clear that if any user sleuths personal information on another user, and then uses that information in a private vendetta to harass, silence or intimidate the other user, they will be removed from the Wikipedia community, and will need to convince either the community or ArbCom that they can be trusted before being allowed back in. That the user doing the harassment is already under formal trust not to mention the other user on Wikipedia, let alone post something that indicates: I know where you live, and I know who your employers are, then we are dealing with a serious issue. The Committee are looking into the reason why Mathsci did what he did (was he provoked by Cla68 for example); however, I do believe Mathsci has been given guidance in the past not to respond to provocation, and especially not to take matters into his own hands. I don't see that ArbCom have any room for manoeuvre here; this is an indef ban.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion (Mathsci)


For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.

Enacted - Rschen7754 08:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * The facts are not in dispute. If consensus is that an initial six months is too lenient, please copy edit accordingly,  Roger Davies  talk 08:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor c/e "referring to" > "relating to".  Roger Davies  talk 07:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anything that persuades me that this should be anything other than an indefinite site ban, indeed off-wiki communication has strengthened my resolve. My current preference is an initial 12 months restriction, but I will support 6. Worm TT( talk ) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Roger. The facts are not in dispute. A lot more could be said, but at this stage it seems it would be best (for his own good as well as that of others) if Mathsci took an enforced break from this Wikimedia project. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With the same thinking as in the comment I made when this request was originally filed. AGK  [•] 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately necessary. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Roger on the substance of the matter, but would prefer an initial 12-month term. Courcelles 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth and T. Canens. Made a trivial copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse


 * Comments

Clarification request: Ayn Rand (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  v/r - TP at 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by TParis
I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:
 * 17:50 8 October 2013 closes an RFC determining not to use qualifiers in front of the word "philosopher" in the lead.
 * 18:04 8 October 2013 Makes an edit request to make the change in the article per the RFC consensus
 * 18:27 8 October 2013 I fulfill the edit request to enact the consensus of the RFC
 * 19:08 removed the full protection per the closed RFC and enacted result


 * At this point, two edit wars break out:
 * 1) Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American:
 * 2) Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied:
 * 00:51 11 October 2013 I fully-protected the article due to edit warring
 * 01:02 11 October 2013 I placed the article under a 1 revert rule and created an edit notice
 * 12:39 11 October 2013 makes an edit that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC.  However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American.  It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
 * 14:06 11 October 2013 I bring it to Jreferee's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
 * 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee declines to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the talk page, Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to this motion, upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - TP 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - TP 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please notify me if you do indeed make an statement concerning an action I've taken. At this point, as you've self-reverted, I believe that settles this matter.  Since I believe I followed policy to the letter, I have no idea what particular action you dispute (maybe the 1RR/week rule but that's not connected to this dispute that I know of).  So after your statement explaining yourself, if you do make one, this matter is wrapped up.--v/r - TP 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars can happen over days, not just minutes or hours. That no edit has been made in 5 hours could simply mean that an editor is currently asleep or at their place of employment and has not had a chance to see that their previous edit was reverted and revert again. This article just came off a full protection for edit warring, there is no reason to doubt that those same editors were not warring again. In addition, this article is under discretionary sanctions, which means that we treat edit wars much more harshly and strictly. The edit where you say I claimed that you consistently make these mistakes, you've taken out of context. It is in fact the motion linked on WP:AE, on the bullet starting "In March 2013, the Arbitration Committee..." and is described as the motion requiring that admins not undo Arbitration actions, in explicitly or in substance, without Arbcom's authority or community consensus. You had neither and your action undoes my full protection in substance because you've subverted it. The notification that this was an Arbitration action should've been evident when I said I'd bring it to WP:AE, but if that were not enough than you should've been aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions either by the edit notice I placed on the article 7 hours before your edit or the "This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page. Despite all of that, the article was fully protected. The giant red notice on top of the edit box told you it was fully protected. WP:PROTECT says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." If you felt that my full protection was rash, you should've come to talk to me about it. Your entire defense is a non sequitur to that. If you don't understand that what you've done is against several policies as I've outlined in very clear detail, then perhaps this case needs to remain open.--v/r - TP 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressing Jreferee's concerns

Statement by Jreferee
I am working on my statement and will post it shortly. TParis's actions need reviewing and, in fairness, I would like to have my statement on record in this discussion before it is closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my actions, the closed AN/RFC post drew me to the Ayn Rand article. (I had never edited the Ayn Rand before). The RFC issue - "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead" had already been closed and addressed three days prior, with all page protection removed.
 * Regarding my actions

At the time of my edit, the page had received full page protection with a 1 revert rule. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary or on the article talk page. I edited the article as an editor implementing WP:LEAD.

The edit I made to the lead that has been cited as raising concern up to where I reverted my edit is my changing the lead from reading (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American article in the lead of the protected article. I revised the lead per WP:LEAD to read "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" text word "Russia" continuing to link to the Russian American article. I though that novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could be covered by the one word "writer" and the remainder of the lead used to characterize the forms of writing she did. I saw "Born in Russia" and "Russian-born" to mean one and the same. When I posted the "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" edit, I saw the change itself as factual, uncontroversial, and having clear consensus via the language in the lead itself. I used the language in the protected article to make the change. I did not think I was taking sides on any issue or of any issue of which I was aware and believed that my edit was consistent with the page protection. User:I JethroBT's subsequent post suggested that my edit may not have contributed towards encouraging consensus-building with interested editors. On reflection, I realized that my edit subsequently gave an appearance of unfairness that could have affected consensus-building with interested editors. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this.

The Russian American disagreement by four editors (two on each side) leading to the full page protection with a 1 revert rule was whether the hyphenated Russian-American should be removed from the article. Michipedian's notes that the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time and someone removed it. Medeis added the Russian-American text back into the article 21:49, 8 October 2013 Ten minutes later, Yworo changed the article to remove the visible Russian-American text and move the Russian-American hidden link21:58, 8 October 2013, noting "here's a better place to link Russian American." Five edits made to the article and about two days later, Michipedian maintained Yworo's edit and added the linked text Russian-American.06:10, 10 October 2013 FreeKnowledgeCreator then removed the Russian-American text but was fine with "Born and educated in Russia" and its link to the Russian American article mentioned just a few sentences later in the lead paragraph. 06:40, 10 October 2013 Michipedian then re-added the Russian-American text.12:53, 10 October 2013 Three edits made to the article and eight hours later, Yworo removed the Russian-American text.20:32, 10 October 2013
 * Regarding TParis's actions

About five hours after the last of seven edits made over two days by four editors regarding the Russian-American issue, TParis change the article protection from unprotected to fully protected with a 1-revert rule so that it linked to Russian American and read "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary, the edit notice, or on the article talk page. TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed.

The above seven edits over two days by four editors is what TParis subsequently characterized as an edit war regarding specific Russian-American verbiage for which fully protected the article with a 1-revert rule the only administrative recourse available. TParis has not commented on or provided any diffs of where he blocked or warned any involved editors before the full page protection with 1-revert rule. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, the four editors involved in the disagreement were Yworo, with 10 total edits to the article, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, with 5 total edits to the article (two favoring removing the hyphenated Russian-American text from the article) and Medeis with 12 total edits to the article, and Michipedian with 3 total edits to the article (two favored retaining the hyphenated Russian-American text in the article). There was no dispute over the article lead containing (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American.

After I made the edit to the article, TParis coercively indicated on my talk page that I needed to either revert my one edit regarding the specific Russian American verbiage ("Russian-born American writer and philosopher") or he would take the matter to WP:AE, and failed to provide enough information in which to make a decision. TParis posts at AN, linking to to claim that my one edit is evidence of consistently making questionable enforcement administrative actions. TParis claims above that this post informed me that his fully protecting the article with a 1-revert rule was somehow an Arbitration action.

This AN request resulted in me looking into the matter. I ask AN to determine at least: (1) whether these events and this AN request were the result of an overreaction by admin TParis to seven edits over two days by four editors new to the article looking to become interested editors in the article. (2) Whether TParis overreacted when he fully protected the article with a one revert rule to protect it against any rearrangement of the lead with regard to the "Russia" term. (3) Whether TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed to favor recent content. (4) Whether TParis failed to sufficiently explain his full page protection/1 edit revert action to those looking to edit the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Query from NE Ent
Why here instead of WP:AE?

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)
Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision.

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is acceptable at all, but I am merely applying the rules (which I explicitly disagree with) you (the arbitrators collectively) have established in the Manning case.
 * Here you are drawing a frankly ridiculous distinction between:
 * making changes to content through protection that prohibits changes to content which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do); and
 * making changes to the title through protection that prohibits changes to the title which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do).
 * In the manning case you (personally) are endorsing the characterisation as simply "not ideal" any administrator ignoring protection when they do not agree that the reason protection was applied has been adequately explained. Whether the edit was requested by another user is irrelevant - the person performing the action takes responsibility for that action (as has been upheld many, many times by ArbCom). Tariq has never denied knowing the page was move protected, probably because trying to move a move protected page displays a prominent warning about the protection.
 * If it is acceptable for one administrator to perform an action in these circumstances but not acceptable for different administrator to perform an action in the same circumstances then we might as well not have any rules of admin conduct at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are still missing the point. Why is anybody changing the title of a move-protected article without consensus different to doing the same to a different part of the page when the content is protected? If the conduct here was totally unacceptable then the same conduct at the Manning article must also be totally unacceptable. If the conduct at the Manning article was only "not ideal" then the same conduct here must also be just "not ideal". Yet the arbcom is saying that they are different in severity. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RL0919
Although he has not made a statement here or otherwise commented on it, Jreferee has now self-reverted the edit, so this case may now be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
My reading is this: TParis' protection was done an arbitration enforcement action, whereas the protecting of Manning was not. So in that way by making the edit Jreferee was overturning an AE action, which is where the big problem comes from. Whereas changing the name of the Manning article was just through normal (not AE) protection. If BLP Spec Admin was mentioned in the log entry then it would have been a completely different story because that would have been reversing an AE action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse given I've commented. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at WP:AN referred to.  Jreferee, please revert yourself.  Risker (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I'm not going to relitigate the Manning naming dispute case here, although there is a big difference between an admin responding to a move request through *move* protection and an admin making major content changes through *full* protection. Jreferee made major content changes to this article, editing through protection, which administrators are warned not to do without obtaining consensus; when they click "edit", the editing window is coloured instead of the usual white, and there is a notice above. The same is not true for changes to titles through move protection. So let's stick to the facts when discussing this situation: based on policy, why you think it is acceptable for Jreferee to rewrite an entire section of this article whilst it is under protection? Risker (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I'm going to ask that this section be closed within 24 hours, so if you don't see this response, I am sorry. I do not excuse anyone's behaviour on the other case, nor do I excuse Jreferee's behaviour here. That he considers himself acting as "an editor" when editing through protection for *any* reason is an error in judgment. When full protection is on an article, NOBODY should be editing it "as an editor". Only edits that have reached consensus on the talk page should be made until the protection is lifted (with very very limited exceptions), and then by a neutral administrator. No MOS changes, no date changes, no adding or removing categories, or other supposedly minor changes, all of which are issues that have led to full protection in the past. If there was agreement on the talk page for the changes that Jreferee made, then an uninvolved administrator could have applied those changes.  Administrators should know as soon as they see the pink screen that *any* edit (except for a clear BLP violation) needs to be discussed.  I might go for fixing an obvious typo, but I've also seen cases where the edit war is directly related to the "correct" spelling of the supposed typo, so caution should be taken there. Risker (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Jreferee has self-reverted, I don't think we need to take this matter further. People make mistakes.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The conduct described in this request is subpar in several respects, but Jreferee has reverted his changes. I would strongly counsel him not to make the same mistake again (it is unlikely the committee would excuse a second offence), and would recommend the rest of the article's editors return to business as usual. AGK  [•] 20:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No action required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Manning naming dispute (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Adam Cuerden (talk) at 21:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 14.2 David Gerard restricted in use of tools


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * David Gerard


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute
 * Finding changed to either a limited time, turned into a request that future questionable admin actions be forwarded to Arbcom for speedy judgement, or revoked.

Statement by Adam Cuerden
There needs to be a principle that findings that are patently bad should be immediately fixed. This finding was meant well, but was rushed, and we ended up with something terrible.

This is precisely the sort of finding Arbcom should not be making, due to a severe chilling effect, combined with absolutely no evidence that this will protect Wikipedia (Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive). No finding in the case showed that Gerard had ever acted in any sort of questionable way towards transsexual issues before these events, and, while his actions may have been slightly outside of then-current practice and policy of the time, they were not excessively so. Arbcom, however, in a rush to close the case, put an infinitely long ban that could only be appealed every six months - with, let me remind you, no evidence of a behaviour pattern towards transsexual articles that would remotely justify doing such to protect Wikipedia. If Gerard is given rope and hangs himself, that would be one thing - should he repeat questionable behaviour, by all means pull him up before you. If you want to ban him for some specified cooling-off period, say three months, that would be another option. You could even put him on warning that future controversial admin actions should be reported to Arbcom for immediate review. But as it is, this merely makes Arbcom look capricious and arbitrary, and, as such, has a chilling effect on any admins working in good-faith to enforce policy. Arbcom is meant to make careful decisions, weigh the evidence, and find remedies that are commensurate to dealing with the problems found, and has failed utterly with a badly-thought-out remedy, rushed in at the last minute.

@Arbitrators: Arbcom has no right to violate policy: Per BLOCK, you literally are not permitted to place blocks or restrictions on users that do not have convincing evidence that they protect the encyclopedia from future problematic actions. You are not permitted to block people where "there is no current conduct issue of concern." Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
Mr. Gerard demonstrably abused administrative tools in a content dispute during the Private Manning Fiasco and in my opinion should have been desysopped. It's ridiculous for anyone to contend that the slap on the wrist he received was in any way excessive. Dead horse. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline review at this time. First off, this is David's request to make, at the time he is permitted to make it (i.e., six months after the close of the case). The Committee does not normally hear requests for amendment from any person other than an editor who is directly affected by the sanction; permitting anyone at any time to request amendments is an unreasonable burden on the committee. Secondly, the case has just closed; the community as a whole, including David Gerard, had ample time to comment on the proposed decision during the course of the case. It is unreasonable to expect the committee to reconsider a decision at this point, when so much discussion ensued during the course of the case itself. I believe, in fact, that more bytes were expended on this case than on any other in the past five years.  Risker (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, David Gerard is not blocked. He is not even prevented from editing the articles in question. Risker (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, Adam, you have no standing to appeal on David's behalf. On the merits, considering his actions, David got off lightly, because he should have been desysopped. So, this is a speedy decline for me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. AGK  [•] 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline Worm TT( talk ) 06:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline Courcelles 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement Appeal Littleolive oil (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  olive (talk) at 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement:

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


 * Seraphimblade notified here

Statement by olive
In this AE the majority of editors who posted including Sandstein said behavior did not rise to a sanctionable level, but Seraphimblade sanctioned me with a six-month topic ban anyway. When I appealed to SB on his talk page he said he gave me the ban because he "saw a clear pattern where you [Olive] would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions". Per the rules for Discretionary Sanctions as outlined at TM Arbcom, I am asking the Committee to consider a reversal of that judgement.

There are five, short, pertinent talk page threads some of which Seraphimblade references on his talk page.They’re not long and I would be grateful if members of the Arb Committee would review the threads and form their own opinions as to whether Seraphimblade was accurate in his assessment of those discussions and if a topic ban was appropriate. Below is a short summary of each thread:

''And if you think the content you deleted is too long I'm sure it can be tightened up and shortened. Not a problem''.(olive (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Reference to and concern with deletion of this content, and subsequent discussion in this thread  In this thread I  point out that good writng style would indicate that we explain what we are criticizing before we criticize it, and that in this case the sources would be fine per WP. I attempt to compromise:

The standard I, and as far as I can tell, other editors involved in the TM arbitration have maintained was based on this comment:
 * Again concern about mass deletion of content without consensus or agreement. Some of the edits seem to be fine, others not.

From Will Beback:

''Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The understanding I have of the TM Arbitration principle, as both something that falls under discretionary sanctions, and is good collaborative editing practice on a contentious article, is to discuss and get agreement before you make deletions, otherwise I'd assume the deletion could be considered peremptory. Based on this longstanding understanding, I warned IRWolfie. I have no problem with abandoning this standard if I’ve misunderstood.
 * Discussion on whether to include what is clearly inaccurate content, and how to deal with inaccurate content in a BLP.


 * Discussion as to whether the Kilby Award web page can be linked or used as a source for content mentioning the Kilby Award.


 * Again, concerns with mass deletion of content that included extensive copyediting by an uninvolved editor and some rearrangement of content by me.

Although I definitely became frustrated with Wolfie, my comments never rose to the level of anything sanctionable, and I feel that the action taken by SB was inappropriate. I am appealing to the Committee for their guidance. Many thanks for your time and thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC))


 * About Montana: per Wolfie's comment on Montana and implied motive. There are editors I enjoy working with on Wikipedia, whom I respect, and who work in areas in which I have an interest. I've edited on articles Montana also worked  on since September 2012, and probably before. A very few instances:

May/2013

April/2013

September/2012


 * AGK and Risker. You both indicate there was clearly sanctionable misconduct. Could you clarify what the misconduct was. For example, Risker you suggest I interpreted some data, but there was no data used/ interpreted in any of those threads. And Thanks. Identifying what specific concerns the arbitrators have will help me going forward. (olive (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))


 * If its useful to explain concerns I have with this case I am happy to do so. However, whatever the outcome, I accept the final decision reached by the arbs and thank them for their time and input.(olive (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

Matscell's comments:


 * What Mastcell said:

Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.


 * What I actually said. In reference to two sources (Woit and Anderson) with conflicting information.

''We have a couple of choices here. We can remove the content and source that is clearly incorrect or we can fairly present both pieces of information. However, why we would deliberately and knowingly include content that is false is a question we should deal with as well.(olive (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))''

I did not add anything, did not edit war anything, and never suggested adding content in a way that would cositute OR. I opened a discussion on conflicting sources and how we use them. I also left the discussion to the other editors.

I added papers to the discussion for Wolfie to look at (Look at the papers published and note who Hagelin was collaborating with- his former peers including Ellis) so he could look at the authors and the dates the papers were published. I did not suggest adding them or using them in any way.


 * What Mastcell said:

Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.


 * What I actually said:

''We self define the Kilby award nost accurately by looking at its website. We can define how others view that award by applying other RSs. Both in this case must be present. Finally, we can represent the award accurately either by removing any definitions of the award or if we want to continue to include explanations of the award as is in place now, we must per weight and NPOV include the content from the foundation site, since it is available, is verifiable, and which defines the award as the foundation defines it. I'm happy to do either one or the other, but the article and its content must be fair and neutral.(olive (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)) ''

I at no time suggested a preference of one source over another as an addition to the article. I was again in discussion about how to use two sources, and I again left the discussion when my opinion was not in agreement with other editors.

Wolfie's repetitive actions in deleting content is a concern especially when the final deletion was of hours of copy edit work put in the article by an uninvolved editor, and a simple reorganization. There was no reason given to revert that copy editing. It is both disappointing and frustrating when an uninvoled editor comes into articles where it is difficult to get neutral outside input, and is treated this way. But again I left the discussion to Wolfie and the uninvolved editor.

''I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article.''(olive)

Final comment: Whatever the reasons given for my sanction, and that changes at every turn, it is both unfair and wrong to say something happened when it didn't, and to use that false information to uphold a sanction. I don't want that for me. I value my growing ability to understand and apply policy. I also understand and value collaboration. For that reason I withdrew from all of the threaded discussions noted in this appeal when my position was not agreed on. If you are sanctioning editors for good faith discussion, even when they leave discussion because opinion is not agreed upon, then you have efftectively made it impossible for any editor to discuss anything on Wikipedia, and the talk page discussions will be controlled by those editors with the status, discussion style, and the connections to scare away less experienced editors. I don't want that for Wikipedia.

Statement by Seraphimblade
I believe that the AE thread, and the subsequent discussion I had with Olive at my talk page, sum up well why the topic ban was necessary. As Olive has already provided the diffs to those, and in the interest of keeping things brief, I'll try to summarize here. If it would be helpful to have a more detailed breakout with particular diffs, please let me know and I'll be happy to do that.

When IRWolfie brought the AE thread, there were a goodly number of diffs presented. No given one of these was a violation egregious enough to warrant sanction. There was no huge edit war, none of that type of thing we so frequently see at AE. What there was, and what had to be addressed, was a pattern of behavior in which Olive would refuse to address arguments brought up (i.e., tenaciously sticking to "it's referenced" rather than addressing concerns about weight, neutrality, etc., that had nothing to do with being unreferenced), and would cast aspersions and veiled threats ("...you are skating on the thinnest of ice...", calling another editor "unconscionable", accusing another editor of violating BLP without cause so far as I saw, and so on.)

This type of conduct is sand in the gears of a content discussion. If it were to have happened once, especially over the course of a long and sometimes frustrating discussion, certainly we all can be forgiven a bad day or mildly intemperate comment once in a while. But seeing this as a pattern, repeated time and again, edit after edit, is cause for concern and, I believe, cause for Olive to be required to step back from the topic area for some time. Being subjected to this type of hostile editing, even when the hostility is mild but persistent, is demoralizing to other editors involved in a discussion, may make other editors who would have wished to join the discussion reconsider their participation, and ultimately is not the type of conduct we should encourage or tolerate.

As far as administrative review of the situation at AE, Sandstein reviewed the situation but declined to take action; however, he explicitly stated that he did not object if someone else did decide action was warranted. CIreland, the other administrator involved in the review, agreed with my assessment. As I stated before, opinion was sharply polarized between the other editors who commented on the situation, but that is certainly and perhaps unfortunately not an uncommon situation at AE. Ultimately, I believe my decision was the best one possible to prevent disruptive behavior, and while I can't make everyone happy, I think it has had and will have that effect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Montanabw
I have no interest or involvement with the subject area where Olive and Wolfie tangled, so as to the minutae of the dispute I am neutral. But I was tracking this original dispute and provided evidence as to the pattern of editing and tendentious discussion that typifies IRWolfie, an editor with whom I have had numerous interactions. I believe that Olive remained calm and acted in good faith, while IRWolfie was throwing one of his usual tantrums when he doesn't get his way. From my own interactions with that editor, I know that one of his tactics is to simply wear people down by endless argument until they either throw up their hands and let him have his way, or they simply quit discussing the matter with him per WP:STICK. His consistent position across multiple WP articles is that pseudoscience is everywhere, his behavior implies that only he is the proper arbiter of what constitutes WP:RS, and he is a great practitioner of overuse of WP:MEDRS to the point of absurdity, yet, when it suits his own POV, he will argue with equal vehemence for unsupportable sources that he would dismiss out of hand if presented by others holding a different view. Olive, in my view, was a saint to be as patient as she was.

Seraphimblade discounted my comments and evidence before and is indirectly doing so again now. However, in this case, it is my firm belief that Olive is not the one at fault here in the least. On other topics where I have worked with her, I have found her to be a kind-hearted and good-natured editor with whom it is easy to collaborate; in contrast, it is near-impossible to collaborate with Wolfie on anything, as, to the best of my knowledge, he is uncompromising and seldom if ever admits that he could possibly be in error. Plus, as here, he has a tendency to viciously attack anyone who successfully calls him on his behavior.

In this case, Olive should not have been sanctioned, IRWolfie's complaint should have been dismissed, and per WP:BOOMERANG Wolfie should have been cautioned that his tactics, tone and attitude were interfering with a successful collaboration to improve an article. A topic ban on Olive, let alone one of six months, was overkill. Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@All, I am glad to be a wiki-friend with Olive, who I have found to be a careful and thoughtful editor. I do ask her for help from time to time, as she is a calm, rational outside voice. Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@All, IR Wolfie's comments below pretty much prove my case. This isn't about me or him, it's about Olive's unnecessary sanctions. Wolfie is pretty much just demonstrating his usual tantrum and deflecting attention from the real issue by attacks on others. I am not recommending any sanctions for Wolfie, save for above-mentioned trout slap, which is not going to happen anyway because no one ever holds Wolfie accountable. Montanabw (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@All, Wolfie's link to the stallion article really must be viewed in its entire context, where we were dealing with a VERY VERY VERY weird editor who was strongly warned by an admin. (Really, where were you then, Wolfie? We could have used your anti-pseudoscience viewpoint that time!)  I decided that further discussion on the Animal-assisted therapy article was fruitless until I had the time and motivation to do an extensive research project, and so his version more or less stands. The edits on the other articles are pretty much irrelevant, as the issues were resolved to the more-or-less-satisfaction of all concerned. Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@All, again this is not about either Wolfie or myself, but if anyone is concerned, I must nonetheless note the nature of some other disputes where Olive and I landed on one side and Wolfie on the other: The Will Beback case  Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where Wolfie and I disagreed, but Olive was NOT involved: Montanabw (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Organic food discussion, Wolfie:46 edits, me: 12 battleground.
 * 2) Roundup herbidcide (This one a great example of Wolfie's battleground mentality with multiple editors in the thread).

@IRWolfie, it appears we DID agree on something once once. Montanabw (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@All, note that Wolfie is adding additional new attacks on me within his collapsed infobox spaces, which is absolutely typical of his ad hominem style of viciously attacking anyone with whom he disagrees. Carcharoth, doing my damnedest to stay above the fray here and stay on topic, but when the other editor is recommending sanctions against me for calling him on his own shit, I do need to respond, if briefly. Yep, damn right Olive is a good editor who I like and Wolfie a person about whom my feelings are more the opposite. But I believe the feeling is mutual, all around. Montanabw (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And in conclusion to all of the above, I am not advocating for any formal sanction against IRWolfie, I am merely pointing out that his behavior is consistent across many articles, and this is regardless of whether Olive or me are involved. For that reason, and all others above, I think the source of this dispute was a major factor in escalating the situation and that Olive's topic ban should be lifted.

@ Carcharoth, per your request, as I was not at all involved in the actual edits, my first concern is that in the AE Seraphimblade attributes several things to Olive that were actually said by others, which was pointed out at the original AE, but seems to have been overlooked in a rush to judgement. Olive made minor errors, like calling an editor an “admin’ when they weren’t an admin, but this was held against her. It just seems that because she had been viewed as the problem in the past, she was assumed to be the problem now, and the behavior of the other editor involved was not examined in the least. Montanabw (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at some article edits, some things jump out at me:
 * 1), Olive makes a reasonable case and is treated with condescension and rudeness
 * 2) here, Olive points out, politely, that the other editor is not understanding the TM area guidelines.
 * 3) here, Olive raises a legitimate critique of the other editor's deep revert without discussion or consideration of other viewpoints.
 * here, Olive points out that the other editor is engaging in a BLP violation and editing against consensus.
 * another time Olive points out a mass reversion without discussion or consensus in violation of the Arb guidelines.

In all of the above, Olive explains herself while the other editor engages in IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hope this helps. Montanabw (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs, please see IRWolfie's repeated personalized attacks on me below, which I am simply going to say are untrue, inaccurate, and impute motives to me that I do not have. I call his actions against Olive as they seem to me, it is for the arbs to assess the evidence and reach a decision. Olive should have her block lifted, or at least shortened dramatically. Consider my attempts to defend myself against all that is written below to be necessary lest silence be deemed consent. I have several times here stated that I do not seek sanctions against Wolfie, yet he asks someone to "please deal with" me. I think that statement pretty much proves my case. (No Wolfie, I don't hate you. I do feel a great deal of frustration at your current behavior however, and your assumption of ill will toward Olive, who is a very sweet and kind human being, disappoints me greatly.  Please also re-read WP:BAIT because you are doing it. )   Montanabw (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-
On Olives request, I believe anyone reading can only come to one reasonable conclusion. That Olive is still unable to see this, and will eventually return to editing that same problematic topic area without realising the issues with her behaviour is worrying. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs. Should the block really expire so soon, if, even in the face of clear examples as indicated by MastCell and Seraphimblade, Olive still insists she does not understand what she did that was in any way problematic? I'm also curious why Olive "became frustrated with" me during the talk page interactions. There is nothing I have said on that talk page which is problematic or was identified as problematic by the uninvolved admins. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not been informed of this thread in which I am being attacked? Montantabw is very very far from being uninvolved. Montanabw has taken a very large grudge against me ever since I edited an article in April of last year (Animal-assisted therapy), in which I was attacked for being Anti-AAT and Pro-AAT. Montanabw took up this grudge, seemingly, because I pointed out the systematic issues with the article at the time. It was based almost entirely under non-MEDRS sources being used for medical claims, which Montanbw appears to have added, see through Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2 (typified by Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2). What's also of note is that after Monantabw supported Olive, olive returned the favour in talk pages of articles she has seemingly never edited so as to support Montanabw:. Montanabw made unsubstantiated claims against me at the WP:AE thread, and is continuing the trend here by repeating them. I would ask that Montanabw desist from turning up at random administrative threads to attack me.

@Montanabw, Do you not see that it is self-evidently ridiculous to insinuate that I am somehow being self centred because I am responding to your unsubstantiated attacks against me. "This isn't about me or him", you say, yet you mention my name 6 times in your original filing, and 19 times in your section in total and you say your post isn't fixated on me? Do you not consider it odd to state "This isn't about me or him", and to then list your viewpoint on some of our previous interactions (examples which I have not mentioned)?

Clearly you view me as some sort of wiki-enemy and Olive as a "wiki-friend", and clearly your reasoning for commenting here is unrelated to the specifics of this case but rather because of your own personal enmity against me due to our past interactions. As Seraphimblade's diffs clearly show, my calm posts where met with accusations that I was making threats, that I was on "thin ice", that I was making "unconscionable" edits and somehow wrecking someone's life, and similar emotional blackmail (Diffs all at ). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Preferably I would prefer if the arbitrators or clerks would prevent Montanabw's self evidently incorrect assertions against me, including allegations that I am engaging in BLP violations.

@Montanabw,
 * 1) There is nothing rude in or the proceeding comment at all, and I reject that this is somehow condescending or rude. Rather I provided a justification for my edit, which you are reading through the lens of bad faith against me, as has already been established above.
 * 2) There is no "TM area guidelines". This continual misunderstanding of arbitration principles as arbitration guidelines is part of the problem. Further, as has also been explained, there was no ‎peremptory removal of content. This has also been explained, and also again misunderstood as you demonstrate.
 * 3) It is most interesting that you mention, in which my politely worded comment is responded to with "That you think you have the right or expertise to ... based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice." How you characterise my comment here  as rude when it only discusses the specific edit, but Olive's as fine and reasonable yet it focusses on attacking me, I do not understand at all.
 * 4) Montanabw claims this highlights a BLP violation. I take accusations of attacking living people very seriously. I wish for Montanabw to substantiate this very serious allegation. Montanabw refers to "editing against a consensus": which consensus is that? Considering my specific edits where never discussed (WP:BOLD and all that), how can I be editing against consensus?
 * 5) Montanabw describes this diff as being about a "a mass reversion without discussion or consensus". Since the edit referred to was not in fact a revert but a removal of fringe sources which were being used (which featured in its GA de-listing), I do not see what Montanabw is talking about. One would hope Montanabw isn't trawling through the talk page, taking what Olive says at face value so as to use it here without any context.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs, can someone please deal with clearly frivolously attacks Montanabw has made? It is quite evident that her/his interpretation of the diffs is solely based on a hatred of me. The analysis of the diffs presented by Montanabw clearly makes no sense at all and I don't like to have baseless accusations against me of often " throwing ... tantrums", BLP violations etc etc. This free pass by Montanabw to make demonstrably false attacks on me, while giving Olive a free pass, is part of what makes Wikipedia so toxic. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Olive you say "I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now." You do realise the article was delisted because the review was flawed i.e it was never at GA quality. To quote the closer: "Many of the sources cited appear to not be very high quailty, e.g. US Peace Government, John Hagelin org, Improbable Research. There appears to be an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". IRWolfie- (talk)


 * Note that I have filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement due to a violation of the topic ban, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide experienced admins with leeway to handle complex behavioral issues. The standard here is whether this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. If no reasonable admin would reach the conclusion that Seraphimblade and Clreland did in this case, then the sanction should be overturned. If, on the other hand, the sanction is the result of reasonable administrative discretion, then it should stand.

I've been involved in some of the discussions at Talk:John Hagelin, and so I'm commenting as an involved editor rather than as an admin here. That said, when I review the first two threads linked by Olive in her appeal:
 * In this thread, Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.
 * In this thread, Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.

In both cases, I see Olive making arguments which contravene our basic sourcing policies, and then sticking to them in the face of policy-based counterarguments. Those behaviors were, in my view, correctly identified as problematic by Seraphimblade and Clreland, two experienced admins. I think this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and, in fact, the sort of action which discretionary sanctions are designed to facilitate. MastCell Talk 00:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I've been mentioned above. Although I didn't see anything actionable in the AE thread, the statements by Seraphimblade and MastCell show that this sanction was, at least, a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. I therefore recommend to decline the appeal.  Sandstein  07:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Montanabw and IRWolfie-, it is getting difficult to see the substance of the appeal here. Can you both please rewrite your statements to focus on the AE appeal and not on each other. Montanabw, please can you provide specific diffs and focus on your views on Littleolive oil's appeal, rather than your general opinion of IRWolfie-. And IRWolfie-, rather than responding to Montanabw, please focus on presenting your views on Littleolive oil's appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think MastCell has it basically right here; it is not an unreasonable sanction amongst the range of sanctions that could have been chosen; it was, even at the time it was applied, supported by at least one other administrator; and there are grounds for the sanction to be applied. There is nothing perverse or outrageous about this sanction. Therefore, I think it should be allowed to stand.  Olive has demonstrated that she is interested and competent in editing other areas of the project, and this is a good opportunity for her to continue her contributions whilst also stepping away from a contentious area where at times her personal interpretation of data gets in the way of NPOV.  Risker (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline appeal. We should not be in the business of micromanaging discretionary sanctions by committee. T. Canens (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * AE does not operate by consensus; the sanction was imposed for clear misconduct; and the sanction imposed was within the range of fair discretion. Decline. AGK  [•] 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade's concerns regarding Littleolive oil's behavior on an article under Discretionary Sanctions appear to be appropriate. Seraphimblade has explained the situation quite well to Littleolive oil. I don't see a need for the Committee to get involved. Decline.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline: Seraphimblade's actions here were a reasonable application of adminstrator discretion.  Roger Davies  talk 12:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes (October 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by uninvolved  Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes

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

Statement by Anthonyhcole
In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox. Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda. Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Jclemens below, I see that in Banning policy, the section Edits by and on behalf of banned editors expressly allows others to edit on behalf of banned users. On the policy talk page I proposed changing from the present wording, "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits."to"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) without first establishing consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI that doing so would be productive."


 * Only 2 editors commented, User:Kww and User:NE Ent. Both opposed my suggested change, Kww proposed an alternative change. --08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Neutralhomer
As I said on the ANI thread, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per User:Mark Arsten's question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support Drmies "redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs" ideas. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

 * I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, Newyorkbrad and Mackensen. I ask you.


 * I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!


 * If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.


 * I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for L'Arianna. Instead, I at least brought the venerable maestro pictured on the Main page and am quite proud of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Learning again. I need to understand more, language or intentions or both. The latest Signpost review quoted Worm That Turned: "The decision to include an infobox in an article is a content decision". Guided by that statement, I read my restriction as: I can make this content decision for an infobox where I created the content. It made sense.

Now I am told that this is not true. Even if I created 99% of the content of an article, I didn't "create" the article. Then who did that? Who created the present state of BWV 49? Who can make that content decision for an infobox? Does the decision rest on the arbitrary fact that someone else thought first of creating a stub (then no) or not (then yes)? That does not make sense. - If it is important to leave the decision for or against an infobox with the content creator (as I read much of the discussion during the case), please find a way to make that real, not only for those who are against an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You mention an article in question, but I don't know which one you mean. As explained above, I did not intend to breach the restriction. What I added to these articles made me their principal author and the addition of an infobox uncontentious. I can in the future avoid it for expanded articles, even if it doesn't make sense. - Please don't misunderstand what I said about Verdi. "I would have loved" doesn't mean I would have done it, even unrestricted. Remember, I left project opera. I still would have loved it ;) Te Deum laudamus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Final statement: I will obey the restrictions in the narrow sense of "article they create" pointed out here from now on even if they don't make sense and go against my quality standards. I love opera. We celebrate Verdi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ps:, written to Smerus 22 August 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update (FWIW) It's very easy to find out which articles you have created. You just go to your "Contributions" page, look at the bottom, click "Articles created" and you will get a list. Those are the pages encompassed under the heading "[they may ]include infoboxes in new articles which they create."
 * Here is a list of articles created by Gerda Arendt . --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
I won't opine as to whether it would be a good or bad thing to relax Gerda's restriction with respect to significant expansion of an article, but article expansion is unquestionably not article creation. In either case, Neutralhomer should not be offering to act as a proxy to circumvent anyone's restriction. Especially in an area where doing so could reignite this little war. Resolute 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC) @Smeat - Montanabw's assertion is not correct. DYK allows two types of content: New (provided it meets minimum thresholds) and expanded (provided it meets an entirely different set of thresholds). But they are not the same thing, and she's engaging in false equivalency. Resolute 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Question from Smeat75
Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Ruhrfisch
The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they [sic] create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." diff. I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Mark Arsten
If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent
I have made you a template:

The concept "on their behalf even if not requested" sounds good in pixels, but it's one of those things that in the long term tends to prolong, rather than bring to an end, a dispute. The NE Ent-created Charlie Morgan has no infobox yet Carly Foulkes does. Who knows if I like infoboxes or not? If I edit an article Gerda has touched, am I doing it on my own volition or 'cause I like Gerda? That type of statement -- "even if not requested" -- thrusts AE admins into the untenable position of having to be mind readers to effectivity perform the task they've volunteered for.

Statement by randomly involved Drmies
Of course turning a redirect into an article should count as creation--even if there was content which was turned into a redirect and subsequently turned into a real article: substance matters, and I draw that substantive from below. AGK: "In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect". I couldn't agree more. Note that I carefully left off the second part of their sentence, since in my opinion this "substantive" article work ("'creation'"--note the quotes within quotes) applies to DYK as well, an area where Gerda is one of our most prolific editors. In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will add that I don't think that Homer or anyone else should in any way do this for her, or on her behalf. That's editing by proxy. The restrictions are there, for better or for worse; clarifying and/or amending them is one thing, but this would be quite another. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Smeat75: "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation"--I don't agree with that statement, since it implies a kind of policy or guideline. I agree with the spirit of the thought, as I said above, but not with the "is considered" part. (I say this is a kind of DYK junkie myself, and with due deference to Montanabw.) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I support Drmies idea of " In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. " We don't need to get involved with a blanket policy here, but I think it makes perfect sense that long-abandoned articles should be treated as new for the purpose of Gerda being allowed to add an infobox. I'd say if she significantly expands an article in a way that meets the DYK criteria (and if there is a dispute, submit it to DYK, obviously, which Gerda usually does anyway), then she should be allowed to add an infobox. Ditto making a redirect into a new article. I would also note that if she begins an expansion and someone else (who might be stalking her edits, gee no one here does that, right?) suddenly jumps in the minute she appears, adds more material before she's done, then claims they did the expansion so she can't add the infobox without penalty, that person should be slapped for baiting. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of what is "proxy editing" is now an even bigger problem. I really am concerned about ideas such as Silk Tork's "For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate." So, let's say that (for the sake of argument) User:Nikkimaria, who is publicly known by everyone here to track Gerda's edits, adds an infobox because she noticed Gerda is working on an article and Nikki decided that it needed an inbobox. Do we sanction Nikki? (This, by the way, has happened, though Gerda's 5x expansion edits occurred long before the current drama.) Or what if a public post on Gerda's talk page like, "gee this article about Foo has no infobox," and someone adds the infobox? Are they going to be slapped? Are they proxy editing just because Gerda mentioned it? This is becoming a bit ridiculous, I think NE Ent is onto something here.— Shall we have a rule that if Gerda touches an article, no matter how obscure and forgotten, then it can NEVER have an infobox unless Folantin, Smerus, and Kleinzach all agree first? And if one of them adds it, are they proxy editing? I can also see someone (can't think who, but in theory) could go through the catalogue of the works of major classical composers and create dozens of one-line stubs, just to be mean to Gerda so she can't add an infobox. That would be total crap. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense, so I'm not holding my breath. Montanabw (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens
The statement "When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested." is not consistent with established policy, as codified in WP:PROXYING which currently reads "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I'll note that the committee has, in the past, specifically authorized certain sitebanned users to contribute content work via proxy editing using this clause. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Where a literal sanction has absurd consequences, it is reasonable to question the sanction.

The concept that "if an editor makes an edit even where not in any way solicited by a banned editor but the banned editor might approve of the edit, that such an edit is improper" is quite sufficiently absurd. Where an editor has substantially altered an article from a prior state into an encyclopedic state, that qualifies, IMHO, as being as much an act of creation as the fact that a composer may take a traditional melody and create a piece of music, or that an editor may take a bare mention of a topic and create an actual article on it. was the "article at issue" before the added material. It consisted of six lines total. 87 words in toto. It now has three dozen sentences, and over 1100 words. To treat this as other than substantially a creation of an article makes a mockery of the English language, and those who try parsing exact "letter of the law" are not doing Wikipedia any favour in either the short run nor the long run. Make it a strongly worded sanction -- and say "the editor must have increased the article content by at least a factor of ten" and this would still not be a violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by only-slightly-involved SarekOfVulcan
I'd say that for all practical purposes, Gerda created the current article. Courcelles' metrics below look like a reasonable shot at guidelines for handling this question. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice some concerns regarding acting on behalf of a restricted user. If an unrestricted editor independently decides that an article is better off with an infobox, even if that article were created by a restricted user, I can't see anyone sanctioning them. However, if that editor is observed to have added infoboxes to a series of articles by a restricted user, then it would be appropriate to discuss the matter with that editor and advise them that their editing pattern could be read as proxying. The aim of sanction enforcement is to prevent disruption, not to prevent normal editing. Someone setting out to deliberately proxy edit for a restricted user is likely to create disruption. I can't see a reason for concern over normal editing procedures.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the argument is going to be made (as it has been above) that those mostly responsible for the content of an article also take the decisions about infoboxes, then that works both ways. If a stub has an infobox and is expanded by someone else, then arguably that person who is responsible for most of the content can take a decision to remove the infobox. And those who have never edited an article shouldn't turn up and add an infobox without discussion first. But that is not how things work around here. The way things really work is that in the first instance, anyone can add or remove infoboxes, but if an infobox is disputed, then (as in all content disputes) it needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. The restrictions on adding or removing infoboxes are not because the articles should or shouldn't have infoboxes, but because the editors given those restrictions have demonstrated poor judgement over the amount of discussion needed (both too little and too much) and how to carry out those discussions. As for redirects, it depends on the editing history. If it was created as a redirect and was never an article, then turning it into an article would be creating an article. If it was an an article at some point before it was redirected, then you may need to consider things some more. This is why the 'articles created' link isn't always accurate. If someone turns a redirect you created into an article, you are credited as the creator when you are not. An example of this sort of thing from my own editing history is Lady Franklin Bay Expedition. See also Category:Redirects with possibilities. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by adding the infobox to the article in question, Gerda did, IMO, breach her sanction. I wouldn't be adverse to at some future point relaxing the restriction to allow Gerda to add infoboxes to articles she has expanded for DYK, but the comment about adding infoboxes to 'celebrate Verdi's birthday' doesn't convince me that this point has been reached yet. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this, and after some discussion among arbitrators, I am coming to the conclusion that this sanction is unworkable. It may be best to modify it to a straight out ban on this editor adding infoboxes to any articles (regardless of whether they created the article or not), coupled with a reminder that this whole matter is not about any single editor. It should be about encouraging thoughtful discussion of infoboxes and what their role is and how editors should discuss them where their use is disputed. I am sure Gerda would be quite willing to not add infoboxes to any articles for the next six months if that meant that people's attention would be diverted from her editing and towards discussion of the larger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed with SilkTork. I would deny this request to proxy for Gerda. AGK  [•] 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark, it's actually a good question. In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect. For example, if Gerda wrote a few paragraphs, and used them to create an article (simultaneously overriding an existing redirect to a larger article), Gerda would for our purposes have 'created' the article even if the page already existed as a redirect. AGK  [•] 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd concur with SilkTork and AGK. Gerda did breach her restriction here. Gerda, my comment which was quoted in the signpost was my opinion on the general case, with a view to improving infobox discussions in the future. In your specific case, you have been given a restriction which takes precedent. If you do not create the article (including creation from a redirect per AGK), then you may not add an infobox. Worm TT( talk ) 07:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Turning a redirect into an article is, at least to me, obviously an article that Gerda has created and can add an infobox if she likes. This is one of the rare, and I mean RARE cases I could get behind a numerical definition for an arbitration restriction. A rule like "Gerda may add an infobox to any article that never has had more than 30 words of readable prose, after she has expanded to at least 200 words of readable prose" might be workable, and the hard numbers would keep drama down on all sides.  Note that the "redirect to article" scenario would be covered clearly under that wording. Courcelles 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A distinction could, I suppose, be made between creating pages and creating articles, though I'm unclear why the need to turn redirects into articles is so pressing. (In any event, this could probably be archived now as it's not really going anywhere.)  Roger Davies  talk13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned (November 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  —John Cline (talk) at 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * The above users have been notified of this request as shown by the included links.—John Cline (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline
Richwales raised a question regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page edits in relation to his Arbcom ban. Equazcion subsequently posted the incident at wp:ani which erupted into a discussion without the potential for consensus. Eventually Beyond My Ken reverted Kiefer's talk page inclusion of an Arbcom voters guide which Kiefer reverted with the following edit summary: "talk page guidelines prohibit such arbitrary action. take it to Arbitration committee enforcement, and stop acting like a cowboy". Most users commenting seem to agree that this matter should be decided by the Committee, as do I. Curiously, Nikkimaria added Kiefer's voter guide to  which in my opinion, strains the spirit and letter of our banning policy. Please tell me if Kiefer's talk page edits are acceptable in concert with his ban and evaluate Nikkimaria's decision to link his content in such fashion as has been shown. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * in saying K.W should be allowed to continue with his "collaborative and constructive endeavour", are you suggesting K.W deserves a unique policy exemption from wp:ban, or that all banned editors should be allowed to operate their respective accounts from their user talk page, unhindered; to engage in "constructive collaborations"?—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , You are correct that this clarification request poses the question(s) of the committee. I am encouraged that so many users are commenting from a broad perspective, opposed to narrowly focusing on the !voting issues alone.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * you don't mute a discussion because the question is moot; instead, you ensure the question is throughly mooted.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sjakkalle is correct! Prolonged tolerance of K.W's talk page misconduct (while banned) is a primary factor leading me to ask these questions here. Consider that a user asked if K.W's talk page edits were allowed by the terms of his ban. An administrator (of high competence) answers, saying yes . Shortly thereafter, another administrator (highly regarded as well) concurs with the answer given, reiterating that Kiefer's ban allowed talk page participation while suggesting the talk page would be blocked if the alternative (Kiefer not being allowed to edit his talk page) were true. The admins' combined counsel is solidified when next, an esteemed sitting arbitrator edits K.W's talk page with conversational prose and a clear intent to collaborate directly with K.W . Two more edits follow,  bolstering the misnomer that collaborating with a banned user does not contravene the effect of a ban.—John Cline (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Equazcion
As I said at ANI (which I now realize was the wrong venue for this), if a user is banned, it was already determined that they shouldn't be involved in the project (for whichever amount of time was specified). That they confine any further attempts technically to userspace shouldn't be a loophole. Talk page access is allowed for banned users merely to allow discussion relating to their ban (as is my understanding), and while practice tends to allow some leniency for benign chatter with former colleagues, clear attempts at further project involvement is an abuse of that leniency, and shouldn't be allowed. It leaves the door open for us to have to make a second determination regarding userspace content, when the spirit of the ban was to have already been a prohibition on their continued involvement. equazcion  →  11:02, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz' comment below -- and I mention this even though I think it's pretty obvious -- there being no explicit policy on "guide writer" standing doesn't override the more general policies on what banned editors may use their userspace for. equazcion  →  12:35, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Would those arbitrators who are commenting please clarify their stances on what, if anything, should happen to existing talk page content the user added during the ban -- assuming their talk page revocation stands -- particularly the voter guide? Thanks in advance. equazcion  →  22:15, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Responding to 's clarification below, "Don't you normally remove whatever they've been writing that doesn't relate specifically to an unblock request?": I don't think I've ever had to deal with a situation like that before, so you may need to pardon my ignorance. I do appreciate you clarifying that point nonetheless. equazcion  →  22:25, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Responding to some recent comments below collectively, I think it would be a mistake to allow this kind of userspace use after a ban. It just creates the need to judge that content as a sort of second ban discussion. If a user has been banned, the decision regarding whether or not they should continue to be allowed to contribute here has already been made. We banned them entirely, because for whatever reason, that was determined to be necessary. That they generally retain the technical ability to edit their talk page just to address the ban is not relevant, and does not constitute a de facto change to a mere namespace restriction. We shouldn't need to allow a banned user to put the community or ArbCom through another debate on whether their significant continued userspace activity constitutes a continuation of the bannable behavior, when bans are instituted largely to ensure we don't have to deal with this user's activity at all (for the specified time period). Significant talk page use during a ban should simply be prohibited. Otherwise bans are not bans, and will not effectively address the issues that bans are intended to address.

As for unfairly targeting this user, it was the significance of their edits that brought this attention on them. As I've said previously, there is leniency afforded to most banned users for idle chatter, and even some angry words. I wouldn't want to institute a removal of that leniency. When one uses that leniency to try and continue significant contributions despite having been banned, you've then abused that leniency. There need be no bright line across-the-board ruling to make way for lawyering about. Wikipedia isn't a system of laws. We subjectively call a duck a duck, and this is a duck. equazcion  →  04:48, 13 Nov 2013 (UTC)

,, I'm a little confused. You think the community should hold a discussion on what should happen to talk pages during bans, and that ArbCom should specify that at each ban decision from now on? I'm not sure how those would work in concert. Focusing on the latter part though, which seems more applicable here for now either way -- since you think it should be specified by ArbCom explicitly in each case, and being that it wasn't specified in this case -- and we are here to request clarification on the decision -- could you now clarify how you think the talk page issue should be specified for this particular ban? equazcion  →  15:28, 14 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
One of the most common RFA questions used to be "What is the difference between a ban and a block?" The most acceptable answer was some version of this:
 * A block is a technical restriction, designed to prevent disruption, whereas a ban is a community-determined restriction on editing, often in specific areas. A block may be used to enforce a ban.

In others words, a ban is a socially-derived action, and as per WP:BANPOL:
 * "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances", with the sole exception of appeals.

KW has edited their talkpage significantly since their ban, contrary to WP:BANPOL. Creating an ArbCom voting guide is an attempt to influence Wikipedia policy, well outside the socially-induced ban. One could question his motives as well...is there an element of WP:POLEMIC to "get back at" those who banned him? Is it a way of electing Arbs who are sympathetic to his cause? The sole remedy is to remove the voting guide, revoke talkpage access and move forward - let KW back into the community when he's willing to follow the rules ES  &#38;L  11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

 * This statement was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&action=view&diff=581323310 posted] by Kiefer.Wolfowitz to his talk page and was copied here by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 12:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC).

The community runs Arbitration Committee elections and does so by its RfCs, which occur following discussion of the immediately preceding election and at the RfC before the election. The election rules require that candidates be in good standing; they do not require that guide writers be in good standing (not even in good standing with the Arbitration Committee).

Richwales has explicitly written that he has a conflict of interest because my guide discusses limitations of his candidacy. In the past, for example in the case of Pennywhale, the Arbitration Committee has allowed banned editors freedom on their talk pages, including criticism of ArbCom decisions.

Secondly, was entitled to add my guide to the election template, per the RfC rules, which again do not require that guide writers be in good standing. (C.f., WP:I don't like it.)

Finally, this is the second time in a month that (formerly ) has left messages on this talk page, despite having been requested many times previously to stop. Would an administrator please remind him of the talk-page policy?

My daughter has a 38.9 C fever because of teething, and I doubt I have time to respond further.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Someone not using his real name
The not-quite-ban ban imposed by the village wise men in order to reduce disruption is achieving its goal. Or is it? LOL Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
I can't see how arbs can win this one. If they prevent K.W from writing his guide they'll be accused of involvement and of silencing their critics, if they allow K.W to go ahead they'll be accused of failing to enforce the rules, and if they recuse they'll be accused of shirking responsibility. The only winners I see here are the drama-mongers - what a brilliant way to encourage good arb candidates to stand for election!

(Oh, and on the topic of the request itself, should K.W be allowed to continue with his collaborative and constructive endeavour? Yes, he should.)

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have to ask that question, then the chronic problem of authoritarianism vs intellectualism has gone completely over your head. Anyway, it's been settled now and the authoritarians have won, so I won't waste anyone's time any further.

Statement by AGK
This clarification request poses the question of whether users banned by the committee require talk page access, not whether banned users can write an election guide on-wiki. Users banned by ArbCom are required to appeal by e-mail under the community arbitration policy, and therefore do not require talk page access. AGK [•] 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbitration policy permits arbitrators to recuse without stating why. The policy makes such provision for very good reasons. AGK  [•] 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
(after edit conflict with AGK) KW was banned by the arbitration committee from participating in the English Wikipedia for 1 year. There were no caveats or exceptions, whether for collaborative and/or constructive endeavour or otherwise. It was not specified otherwise and so the ban is a site ban. The banning policy is unequivocal "An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with [the provisions specified]." (emphasis in original). The provisions simply detail how to appeal.

Based on this, the only question the arbcom adjudicate on is "Is Kiefer.Wolofowitz appealing his ban?"
 * If the answer is yes, and the Committee needs to decides to hear the appeal and the appeal is successful, then KW's guide should be accepted as would any other (assuming it does not breach any other rules).
 * In all other circumstances, KW is a banned user who is not permitted to edit Wikipedia and so his edits should be deleted and/or reverted per the usual practice. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

KW is as free as anyone else express opinions about any aspect of Wikipedia off site. For reasons detailed in the linked arbitration case though he has been banned from Wikipedia and as such all his editing privileges have been revoked. The sole exception to this is that he is allowed to appeal his ban - but he can do that at least as easily by email. Personally I don't regard offering opinions about the arb election to be appealing a block, but that is for the committee to decide.

If we want to allow banned users to be allowed to contribute in other ways than appealing their ban then consensus must be gained to change the rules first (and I would argue against such a change). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all banned users abuse their talk page access. Those that do get their talk page access removed. That is not being unfair to KW or anyone else. If you know of some other banned user who is abusing their talk page access then either remove it yourself (if you are an admin) or ask an administrator to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
If a banned user were using his user talk page to attempt to sway votes at RfA, or to campaign for or against particular positions at AfD, MfD, or in an RfC, or any other voting or deliberative process on Wikipedia, there wouldn't be this manufactured confusion and hand-wringing. The banning policy does not carve out a specific exemption for ArbCom elections, and there is no reason why it should&mdash;and there is definitely no reason for the ArbCom to 'legislate from the bench' by creating one. It goes without saying that Kiefer is welcome to exercise his freedoms of speech and association in whatever off-wiki venues will have him; Wikipedia is not obliged (and should not be encouraged) to provide banned users a soapbox. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sjakkalle's action in reblocking without talk page access was correct, and should be uncontroversial. This matter could – and probably should – have been dealt with as a straight arbitration enforcement matter, without requiring the attention or input of the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
Kiefer is banned. Full Stop. He does not have the right to post anything other than ban appeals on Wikipedia. Likewise, ArbCom does not have the right to modify the banning policy by fiat. This request should be closed as moot. Resolute 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @WereSpielChequers. Bad policy is letting a banned editor off the hook, even partially, simply because you like them or you like their contributions.  KW put himself into this position with consistent drama mongering, consistent bad faith accusations and consistently wasting the community's time.  He lost his privilege to edit Wikipedia as a result.  Perhaps in August, he will come back willing to participate constructively in all aspects of Wikipedia - though I won't hold my breath.  But until then, no, we should not allow him to use is talk page as a soapbox, and I agree with others: it should be blanked in addition to his access being revoked. Resolute 14:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt
Short summary of what I wrote in other venues where these questions were raised: Is it possible that a user contributes constructively to the encyclopedia on his talk page even when he is banned? I hope yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ps: On the specific talk page, I have seen not only an interesting voters guide (under construction) showing insight, but also ideas about a mathematician and guitar tuning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jprg1966
I have seen a number of editors say that Kiefer's efforts are not particularly disruptive a reflection of a desire to edit constructively, so it is better to allow him to continue. But this user was not banned for lack of ability to make useful edits. Everyone agrees he is HERE to build an encyclopedia. Still, a ban was instituted despite their constructive contributions. It should be enforced. As TParis wrote in summarizing an RFC/U concerning this case, "No matter a person's excellent contributions, all editors are treated with the same rules." -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller
If banned doesn't actually mean banned then it seems pretty pointless. And as been pointed out, he doesn't need talk page access as his appeal must be by email. Using it seems a way of getting around his ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AutomaticStrikeout
It seems to me that bans are the most serious of all sanctions and therefore should be taken very seriously. If the committee fails to enforce its own sanctions, nobody else will do so. If KW is not going to use his talk page for appeals, revoke his talk page access. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Richwales
The banning policy is, IMO, very clear that a site-banned editor is "forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, ... under any and all circumstances". "Anywhere" means "anywhere", and it includes a banned user's talk page. The only stated exception to the blanket editing prohibition that an editor who still has access to his/her talk page may use it to lodge an appeal. Even if Kiefer's voter guide is considered to be a method of appealing his/her site ban, this is still not appropriate because (per the arbitration decision) he/she is not allowed to request reinstatement until next August at the earliest.

According to WP:BMB (a subsection of the banning policy), a site-banned user is not supposed to make any edits — not even "good" edits — because "even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." Further, any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted on sight by anyone, so 's deletion of Kiefer's voter guide material from his talk page was legitimate, and not a case of "arbitrary action" or "acting like a cowboy", despite the general prohibition in the talk page guidelines against removing material from someone else's talk page.

It should be noted, I believe, that the prohibition on banned users editing their own talk pages has not been consistently enforced — and if this were solely a matter of Kiefer making comments about arbitrator candidates for the benefit of those users who have chosen to watch his talk page, it might not be such a big deal. However, Kiefer went beyond a simple case of private blogging or soapboxing by adding a   tag to his material, thereby explicitly seeking to engage the entire community by having his comments officially recognized as a legitimate part of the general discussion of candidates. This, in my view, clearly violates not only the letter, but also the spirit of the site ban imposed on him by ArbCom last August. If a decision is ultimately made to allow Kiefer to continue using his talk page to make comments (supportive and/or critical) on the upcoming ArbCom election, the category tag should (IMO) be removed, and his comments should not be linked to from any official election-related page.

Although I may be seen by some as having a conflict of interest here, since my positions and record are being criticized in Kiefer's guide, I believe the principles involved here go beyond my own ArbCom candidacy (or that of any of the other candidates mentioned positively or negatively in Kiefer's comments). However, in order to reduce the possibility that I might have been seen to be acting in my own self-interest, I brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 to solicit other comments, rather than taking any direct action (such as deleting Kiefer's voter guide comments, or using my admin abilities to revoke his talk page access) which, even if arguably justifiable under the banning policy, could easily have been seen as inappropriately using the admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If KW's talk page access is going to be revoked, then I would suggest that the "voting guide" section of his/her talk page should be deleted as well. It may also be wise to fully protect the talk page — both to discourage "grave dancing", and also to prevent someone else from reinstating the deleted voting guide material — though it might be better to wait before doing these latter steps until/unless they actually become necessary.


 * I am also inclined to agree with that the seven currently sitting arbs who participated in the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, and who voted to site-ban KW, can reasonably be expected to comment here regarding the intended scope of the ban which they voted to impose.  Specifically, if  and  feel there are pressing reasons why they should recuse themselves here, I believe the community has a right to understand why.


 * Regarding the general question of talk page access for banned users, it has seemed to me for some time that someone who is under an ArbCom-imposed site ban really does not have any valid reason for talk page access, since they can appeal their ban only to ArbCom or Jimbo (and should probably be doing so by e-mail anyway). I realize that even though the banning policy seems to say clearly that site-banned users should not use their talk pages except for appealing their bans, this has not generally been enforced in practice.  I did not raise this whole question in the first place in order to force the talk page access issue or otherwise make a point, but if ArbCom decides to use this situation as a basis for clarifying the general issue of talk page access by banned users, I don't think I would object.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle
I have removed the talkpage access. The wording of the banning policy is very clear here about what a banned user may do with the talkpage, and an overview of the edits made by KF shows that it has been used for everything else.

@Boing! said Zebedee: I have no problem with your opinion that KF should be allowed to continue with his endeavors, but it would require either that the ban be lifted or that ArbCom make a special exemption from the ban. ArbCom are without question fully authorized to do so, but so far they haven't. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I responded to a similar query by Gerda Arendt on my talkpage. In this case, the wording of the banning policy is very clear and unambigouous. There is nothing to clarify. Kiefer Wolfowitz has continued using the talkpage to edit in contravention to the ban, and removing talkpage access is the only way of stopping him from doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite: I believe that this really belonged in the Requests for Enforcement section. I think it wound up in the Clarification section because KW was able to edit the talkpage in violation of the ban for three months before someone complained about it, and that length of time has led people to believe that there is something to clarify. Had the talkpage access been removed after the first instance where he did so, no eyebrows would have been raised at all. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
@Sjakkalle: Why have you taken this action whilst the discussion is taking place here? Surely this clarification motion is to decide the issue, rather than random admins imposing their own take on the issue? Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Sjakkalle: I see your point, but if that was unambiguously the case, why is there a motion here in the first place? Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky Caldron
This was (until the recent Admin. action) a request for AC clarification. On the face of it a straightforward one. Any AC member involved in the original unanimous case must be accountable for clarifying that decision.

If those that argue that this is moot and that KW is indeed not allowed to edit his talk page are correct in that view, then those members of Arbcom who supported the original ban have absolutely no reason to absent themselves from clarifying that decision here. There can be no conflict of interest in simply restating a previous decision. But some have ducked the issue.

Admins. should have ensured the decision was fully implemented in August. The error here is almost entirely Arbcom’s responsibility in not ensuring that their decision was fully promulgated 3 months ago. Refusing to participate in clarifying that decision now because of perceived COI looks like dereliction.

If, on the other hand, KW's talk page access is debatable then the best argument I would offer is that his contributions, including the reason we are here – the AC candidate review - do no harm. Assuming we are not entertaining the idea that the material should be revdel’d then the cat, as they say, is out of the bag. The horse has bolted. It would seem to be a peculiar form of punishment now to revoke his TP access. All that will generate is even more heat than light. Leaky Caldron  19:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
Sometimes hard cases make bad law, and sometimes they make useful precedents. I think this is one of the latter occasions. Yes the letter of current policy is that the only edits a banned user can make are their next appeal, however as has been noted above this is not the most consistently followed of policies. More importantly as far as I am aware it has been a long time since we reviewed this policy, and many of those calling for it to be enforced are doing so because it is policy, without necessarily saying why they think it is good policy.

There was a perfectly civil discussion going on about this at AN/I. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they have that conversation unhatted and moved to its own RFC, and trust the community to review and confirm or amend the policy of only allowing banned users to use their talkpage to make unblock appeals on the appropriate dates.

The only thing that Arbcom should then rule on is whether the guide can be included in the user guide template until such time as the RFC ends. For what its worth, though I'm minded to support changing the policy to only stop talkpage edits when necessary, I appreciate that it would be pre-emptive to link the guide into the template until and unless such an RFC closed with banned user talkpages defaulting to being open.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Risker I didn't dispute that bringing it to Arbcom was technically correct. I merely pointed out that one of your options is to to say that the policy needs to be reaffirmed or changed, and that the appropriate way to change policy is by RFC. I don't have a problem with Arbcom doing things that the community can't resolve, especially where confidential information is involved. But I'm not seeing that here, from what I can see an RFC on a policy that hasn't been reviewed for a long time and has not been consistently enforced would be a valid and sensible option  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 01:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Risker. I can think of far worse precedents one could set, some of them would even look bad to the press. I honestly doubt that a banned editor's voting guide would be all that much more influential for being on Wiki rather than on a "badsite", and if they went from constructive criticism to personal attacks then of course talkpage access could then be revoked.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 04:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute. I agree that one shouldn't make exceptions "simply because you like them or you like their contributions." But that isn't my argument nor does it apply in this case, I am aware of KW, I'm sure our paths have crossed somewhere on Wiki - possibly in different sections of an RFA. But I haven't looked at his contributions or indeed his case in sufficient detail either to count him as a wiki friend or indeed to challenge Arbcom's ruling in that case. Though I suppose I should be grateful that he published the IRC threat against me from someone I used to hold in high regard. But my position here is not that exceptions should be made for people one likes, my suggestion is that if the ancient policy of removing talkpage access from banned editors has been inconsistently applied we should review and change or reaffirm the policy. I'm minded to support making it consistent with talkpage access for blocked editors, with a default to leaving it open but revoking it where there is good cause to do so.

Statement by SB_Johnny
Other than saying "yup, what WereSpielChequers said", it's also worth a passing thought that a person banned by arbcom might legitimately express an interest in the arbcom elections as part of the "seeking an unblock" exemption of using their own user talk.

Otherwise, this is an absolutely ridiculous way to treat someone who once contributed a bunch to the encyclopedia. It's not all that difficult to just unwatch his page and/or dismiss out of hand his election suggestions, right? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nick
This is, at present, unfairly targeting Kiefer. If this is going to be the new absolute interpretation of the banning policy, then it needs to be applied uniformly to every banned user on the project. You could go round and round in circles all month about why it's both right and wrong for Kiefer to produce an Arbcom voting guide or otherwise influence the Arbcom elections, and as my head hurts thinking about all the ramifications, I'm going to stay firmly on the fence and say I neither want his talk page locked or unlocked when dealt with in isolation, just that he needs to be treated entirely fairly alongside every other banned user on the project. Nick (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&action=view&diff=581316114 informed] Kiefer.Wolfowitz that if he'd like to make a statement he can make in his talk page and someone will copy it over to here for him. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse as I commented in the case, and also have a voters' guide this year. --Rschen7754 18:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse Worm TT( talk ) 10:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse on this specific issue  Roger Davies  talk 12:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I will leave this matter to my colleagues with 2013–14 terms to decide. AGK  [•] 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keifer is right that anyone can write a voter guide, but per longstanding practice (and good reason) users banned are restricted from normal editing behaviors. Generally there's some latitude given to the user's talk page—it's kept unlocked to facilitate appeals, and on the presumption that the user won't be providing a reason to require locking it. On looking at Keifer's talk page however I'm seeing a whole lot of soapboxing and not much else. While I have in the past very much appreciated Keifer's insight in his guides, I also see it being incompatible with the sanctions he is currently under. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Recuse as well, because I was recused in the underlying case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User should be reblocked without talk page access, the page locked to prevent others from taunting him, and he can make an appeal via email to the Arbitration Committee at the applicable time. While there's latitude for appeals, anything else is unacceptable and is contrary to the user's ban.  Risker (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Equazcion, really? What would you normally do with the talk page of a banned user who's had to have his talk page privileges revoked? Don't you normally remove whatever they've been writing that doesn't relate specifically to an unblock request?  Why would this case be any different? If you're only thinking of removing the candidate guide, take that question to the Election Commission.  Risker (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers, Arbcom reviews Arbcom bans and blocks and those coming from Arbitration enforcement, and any issues related to those bans and blocks; this clearly falls within Arbcom's purview. The community should review all other bans and blocks and issues related to them; in fact, I've been trying to persuade the community to set up its own group to review community-based bans and blocks as "the appeal of last resort" for a couple of years.  Once the community gets that part straightened out, and Arbcom doesn't get dozens of ban/block appeals a week, then we can talk about whether or not the community should have jurisdiction over Arbcom bans and blocks. The choice to bring this for clarification here was entirely correct.  Risker (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @WereSpielChequers, go have an RFC if you want an RFC; this ban would still be under Arbcom's purview. I would have removed talk page access weeks ago if I'd realised that he was continuing the same dispute for which he had been banned. I'm disappointed that you don't feel that's the appropriate way to deal with banned users who abuse the community's tolerance on multiple occasions.  I also do not understand why you think it is a good idea for someone who has deliberately been removed from the community to be given the opportunity to try to affect the one election that the community has, to the committee that will be responsible for making future decisions about his status in the community. There are all kinds of precedents for removing talk page access from banned users who continue to carry on the same dispute for which they are banned, whether by the community, by single administrators, or by Arbcom.  Do you think we should allow all of them to try to influence arbcom elections?  Permitting a banned user to use Wikipedia to attempt to influence Arbcom elections is possibly the worst precedent I can possibly imagine, and would raise questions about the integrity of all who are elected.  Those who are courageous enough to stand for election ( 50 42 questions already???) and those who ultimately succeed do not need to start their terms with questions about whether or not they got elected based on the interventions of banned users.  Risker (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Endorse action taken by Sjakkalle and agree with Risker and David Fuchs. In passing, this issue is not recent. The issue of Kiefer's talk page access came up in August shortly after the case closed and came up again at the beginning of November. For some reason the issue wasn't dealt with back in August. I was inactive on the case itself. Looking at the reasons for the ban, I can understand what looks like a reluctance to be heavy-handed here, and things did fall quiet on Kiefer's talk page for around two months. However, when Kiefer returned and began making edits both about the case and other matters, something clearly needed to be done. My instinct was and still is that talk page access should be revoked with instructions left as to where to appeal and/or communicate concerns if needed. Now that talk page access has been revoked, there is little left to clarify here. Kiefer, of course, remains free to continue to communicate by e-mail or off-wiki (both with ArbCom and others) if he and others need to do so. This is separate from the matter of open and vigorous debate regarding past and present cases - such debate should be encouraged within the context of the current arbitration committee election. Any contentious issues regarding that election should be referred to the co-ordinators (see the talk page there) and/or the Electoral Commission as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is an ArbCom matter. While the Committee did ban this user, and while ArbCom do have some measure of control over ArbCom procedures, the process and mechanics of a ban are in the hands of the community. If there is some vagueness over how much access a banned user (either an ArbCom or community banned user) can have to their talkpage, I think that is a community issue, not an ArbCom one. My understanding is that a banned user is left access to their talkpage in order to appeal the ban. In the case of an ArbCom ban, the appeal would anyway come direct to the Committee, and so access is not required. I assume access is left open to allow minor and insignificant responses to queries left on the talkpage. I also understand that if a user excessively uses their talkpage, access to it is removed - particularly if their use of that page has become contentious or unpleasant. I think the current process works well enough, and I understand in this situation that an admin in the community has locked the page because the access has become contentious. If people feel that in all cases a banned user should automatically lose access to their talkpage (or that a banned user's talkpage should be automatically locked so there is no unpleasant taunting) that is a community decision, not an ArbCom one, and a discussion should be started on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. What the Committee could take on board from this incident is that when banning users, consideration could be given to specifying a talkpage lock down in the remedy.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, what SilkTork just said; I agree that the underlying issue should be discussed by the community and that, for the future, it may be a good idea for us to specify whether or not an editor we banned should still be allowed to edit his talk page, which, right now, is left, most of the times, to the discretion of the admin enforcing our decision (the same happens with bans imposed by the community, where the admin who closes the discussion decides whether to remove talk page access or not). Consistency is good, so, as I said, I think a community discussion would be appropriate here. Also, since this issue concerned an election guide, I think that it should have been handled by the electoral commission; in my opinion, it's better for arbitrators, regardless of the fact they may be up for (re-)election or not, not to get involved in their official capacity in anything concerning elections. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation (November 2013) ==
 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Fram (talk) at 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

Statement by Fram
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN for short) has been topic banned from creating articles. He has recently requested another user, Carrite, to move a few pages RAN recently created in his user space to the main space (see User talk:Carrite. It is unclear whether this violates his topic ban or not. Carrite was a party to the previous case so is presumably aware of the topic ban. Note; this is a request for clarification, no action against anyone involved is wanted here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
Here's the question: is RAN banned from all article-starting processes (AfC or use of an unambiguous, supervisable proxy) or is he banned from starting articles himself? And here's the underlying issue: is this topic-ban intended to prevent something or is it punitive for past behavior? To wit, is it the intent of ArbCom to stop the creation of new articles with copyright problems by RAN or is the intent of ArbCom to stop RAN from such contributions altogether? Creation though either Articles for Creation or a second party forces a second set of eyes on the creation to ensure copyright compliance — which is no issue on the two pieces here. I feel RAN's creation of new articles in this manner follows the intent if not the spirit of the topic ban. I do follow Fram in asking for clarification on the matter, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @WormTT. Per "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." — These articles are verifiable, productive, NPOV, copyright clean. As for my "independent reasons for making such efforts," that would involve my desire to see a productive content-creator return to work on the project. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @RAN. I still haven't had a news conference changing my gender yet, I'll be sure to let you know if I ever do though. Until then I'm a "he." xoxo, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Risker. Exactly. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf. I don't think one could come up with a more bureaucratic proposal if they tried. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@ArbCom. Try this proposed motion for size: "ArbCom acknowledges that RAN may create articles through the Articles for Creation process or through use of a unambiguous proxy. Any editor moving an article into mainspace is cautioned that they become responsible for any copyright violations contained therein. Richard Norton is encouraged to seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience."

And then, get rid of the ill-considered topic ban on creations, which was a really bad decision in his case. Limit him to 5 starts a month for 12 months or some other reasonable number. He'll be monitored with respect to copyvio, trust me. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Norton
I want to show that I can create new content free from copyright violation then have it vetted by a second person and if acceptable, posted. My goal is to show that I can create well-written content and then apply to have my ban lifted. I want to show Arbcom my newest entries. The ban should not be permanent punishment for past deeds. "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " This is exactly what Carrite has done, note that he doesn't believe that the quote parameter should ever be used in a citation, and has removed the quotes from the text when he posts what I have created. You are all welcome to peruse my standard biographies to see if I can have my restriction lifted:
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Lawson ▶ John Lawson (cyclist)
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Gus Lawson ‎▶ Gus Lawson
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Iver Lawson (cyclist)
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Iver Lawson (publisher)
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward Everett Grosscup ‎
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Daniel Spader Voorhees
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Ellis Roosevelt
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Charles O'Connor Hennessy
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Samuel Train Dutton
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Luther Tracy Townsend
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Arthur Chamberlin Wise
 * User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Brandram Boileau Ussher

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend backup
During the Doncram case, Doncram was banned from creating new articles, but nobody (even those of us who were on the other side) objected to the idea of Doncram creating of articles via AFC. In the same way, if RAN's ban specifically said "no creating pages in mainspace", it would be a violation of the spirit of the ban for him to create a page in userspace and move it, because nobody's reviewing it, but it wouldn't be wrong if someone else were to move it, since the problem has been that RAN has created copyvios in the past. RAN shouldn't be given any sanction whatsoever for these pages, unless they violate Copyright violations or some other standard to which everyone is held. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: RAN)
As a way forward perhaps the committee should amend the case with a motion along the lines of (but probably simplified from) below:
 * RAN may create new articles in his userspace but may not move them to any other namespace.
 * RAN may ask any administrator or other user with the Reviewer userright to review his new articles subject to the following conditions:
 * He must explicitly state that the draft article must be checked to ensure it contains no copyright violations. Linking to the case for explanation/clarification is encouraged but not required.
 * He must explicitly state that any user who moves the draft article to another namespace takes full responsibility for its contents, including any copyright violations it contains. Any user moving a draft created by RAN is encouraged to explicitly acknowledge their taking of this responsibility.
 * These statements must be included at the top of the draft article page from at or before the time a review is requested and the continuously until at least the draft has been accepted or rejected. The form of words should be approved by one or more non-recused arbitrators or nominated administrators prior to the first review being requested.
 * Users reviewing RAN's draft articles must keep a log of all drafts reviewed, explicitly noting for each draft whether it contained copyright violations or not.
 * Any drafts moved to the mainspace that have not been certified by a reviewer or administrator as free from copyright violations, may be speedily deleted as if they were a copyright violation without further investigation. The user moving such a page takes full responsibility and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
 * Any reviewed drafts moved to the mainspace subsequently found to have contained copyright violations at the time of the move must be noted in the log. The person certifying the draft as not containing copyright violations takes full responsibility for the contents and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
 * RAN's permission to create draft articles may be suspended for up to 3 months per offence by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement in any of the following circumstances:
 * Asking another user to review a draft that does not contain the statements required by conditions 1 and 2
 * Asking another user to review a draft that contains copyright violations.
 * After three offences the maximum suspension shall be 12 months.
 * This is in addition to the provisions at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).
 * Administrators who have reviewed RAN's draft articles shall not automatically be considered involved for the purposes of any Arbitration Enforcement action.
 * RAN may appeal this sanction to the committee after 6 months and at least 10 drafts have been reviewed and found not to contain copyright violations.

The aim of this is to:
 * 1) Make it clear that RAN may create article drafts if he makes it clear they must be verified free of copyright violations
 * 2) Make it clear that users accepting these drafts take all responsibility for the drafts
 * 3) Provide a route for RAN to rehabilitate himself as a contributor that has clearly defined boundaries to keep him on course and protect the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
I would like to note that Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram was a workable solution for how an editor could be restricted from creating problematic articles, yet at the same time be allowed to contribute. While the eventual outcome involved the subject being further topic banned in an Arb Enforcement request. I agree that it should not be ArbCom's place to on a whim amend the sanctions against this user, but feel that an amendment to allow an Articles For Creation submission regime would be a good compromise. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse from this particular request. --Rschen7754 09:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I consider this a violation of the spirit of the topic ban, though since it is not explicitly prohibited in the remedy I cannot fault RAN for his actions. Procedurally, the best way of proceeding would be to tighten the remedy by motion on this page. AGK  [•] 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the age old question of proxying edits. RAN is banned from creating pages and Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. I don't think there's any need for clarification, it seems pretty clear to me already. Having said that, I don't see the need for any sanctions, just a clear message that if RAN wants to create articles he needs to appeal the ban. Worm TT( talk ) 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it was pretty clear to me already, but to make sure everyone knows where I stand, Carrite is perfectly within his rights to create the articles, but they're totally on his head. Any repercussions from creating the article are entirely on Carrite's head, therefore he should be absolutely clear that the changes are verifiable and productive. The independent reason is "because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on these subjects and this draft I have found and checked is high quality". Richard shouldn't be putting it upon anyone to create articles for him, and should be appealing his ban if he feels he is able to create articles. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the topic-ban is to preclude RAN from creating new articles because too many of the articles he did create contained copyright infringements. If someone can suggest a mechanism for ensuring that no further infringements will take place, that should be discussed here. However, simply posting a request that an editor move the articles, with no provision for any vetting or checking, is obviously unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Newyorkbrad. Any editor who takes it upon him or herself to move an article written by RAN in his userspace takes on the responsibility for ensuring that the content meets all criteria of the project, including but not limited to ensuring that there is no copyvio. If an editor moves an article by RAN to article space and it turns out to be copyvio, the moving editor is completely responsible for the copyvio and is subject to the usual sanctions of the project for such edits.  In other words, if you haven't personally checked it for copyvio, it's on your head. I also agree with WTT that RAN should be appealing the ban rather than using a back door to get his articles published.   Risker (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues. RAN is trying to work around his restriction and should stop doing so. Carrite may publish the material if they wish but only by assuming complete and sole responsibility for it.  Roger Davies  talk 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A sensible and appropriate response to a request to proxy edit to circumvent a ban, is to consider suggesting that the banned user appeals the ban. That would be a more helpful and less potentially disruptive route than to agree to the proxying.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * RAN was restricted to protect the project from copyright infringement; if Carrite checks every single article, accepts the responsibility of making sure that no infringing material is present, then I'd say that, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with what he does. If, on the other hand, there is no quality control, then that's a problem. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with what my colleagues have stated above. I also agree with what Carrite said: "Richard Norton should seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience." One problem with proxying (other people taking responsibility for the content) is that it can be difficult to carry out copyright checks for articles that refer to sources that are not online. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Macedonia 2 (November 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Red  Slash  at 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 29


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2
 * Allow move requests to take place which would propose for Republic of Macedonia to move to Macedonia and for the disambiguation page to be moved to Macedonia (disambiguation).

Statement by User:Red Slash
It's been over four years since the case was decided, and I think the country article has primary topic with regard to the name "Macedonia". If I think that Cheddar cheese has primary topic for "cheddar" I can file a move request, but I feel unsure if I can do that for Macedonia since there was this case that seems to have prohibited move requests. But the reasoning seems to not be as pressing. This is not a request for some grand rescoping of the decision; simply a request that we let the community revisit a decision from four years ago made under some duress as to the primary topic of "Macedonia".

Statement by Fut.Perf.
In answer to SilkTork's question "Have there been any discussions since the case closed?": the solutions brought about by the Arbcom-imposed RfC process (WP:NCMAC) have been remarkably successful and stable. Very few serious disagreements have occurred ever since then at least among experienced and established editors (occassional expressions of unhappiness from pro-"FYROM" driveby editors notwithstanding). Even many of the Greek editors who would have been most vocally against it at the time of the conflict have been helping to uphold the consensus against driveby revert-warriors. For ease of reference, Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles is the main RfC page regarding the main Republic of Macedonia article, which Red Slash wishes to review now. If you look over it, you will see that the decision was taken on the basis of quite a large amount of carefully assembled data and quite a lot of well-informed independent input. This is in striking contrast to all earlier, less formal attempts at a solution, which basically had all ended up being shouted down and bogged down by POV stonewalling. The decision on this particular point was based on a slight majority of votes, with the alternative (country article at plain "Macedonia") also receiving substantial support and solid arguments. On the whole, after four years, I don't think the Arbcom decision should be taken as abrogating the general principle that "consensus can change", but if a new discussion is to be initiated we should make sure that it will again be done under close surveillance of clueful and neutral administrators to avoid a relapse into the kind of POV-warring we used to see regularly before 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I think we all forgot to mention that the original Macedonia 2 decision actually contains quite explicit language answering Red Slash's proposal. Here it is:
 * "... Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon."
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo
As another participant in ARBMAC2, I heartily concur with Future Perfect's appraisal. And I also have been pleasantly surprised at how stable the solution has become, with opponents during the process becoming current allies to protect the consensus compromise against the "drive-by" editors pushing a nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The wording is:  My interpretation of that is that no move should take place until a community discussion, such as move request discussion, has taken place. So I don't see that it is forbidding such a discussion. The case was initiated because there were contentious page moves without having gone through the page move request procedure. I would say that a community move request would play a significant part in "a solution for the naming dispute". Have there been any discussions since the case closed? Worth having a look to see if there have been; if not, then I see no reason to object to a move request discussion.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what I am saying is that I don't see a need for amendment, as the remedy already encourages community discussion. In deciding on any future community discussions, it is always wise to refer to previous discussions on the same issue. Fut.Perf. has indicated there has been some discussion on this issue, so best practice would be to consider that discussion before deciding to initiate a new discussion. Also to be borne in mind is the current stability; however, it is not in the Committee's authority to impose content decisions, nor to prevent the community discussing them. It is well within the community's power to restrict any user who makes disruptive move requests; though worth pointing out that a user making a well reasoned move request supported by reliable sources should not be regarded as disruptive, unless they are making repeated requests on the same article.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out, there was an extensive and supervised naming discussion after the case closed. This is similar to what happened in the Ireland naming case. In both cases, the discussion seems to to have brought some stability to the topic area. From a personal point of view, the intent of the moratoria on name discussions was not just stability for stability's sake, but to reduce the distraction of such discussions so that editors could continue to work on improving the content of the article (the bit after the title that people actually read to learn about the topic area). Could anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the topic area give some idea of whether the articles themselves have improved much in these four years or not? In general, I would hope that people would place more of a priority on improving article content than on arguing over the name of the articles, but that may be too optimistic. To answer the question posed, I'm not seeing any need for amendment here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues (and Fut. Perf.) here. The remedy does not prohibit re-opening orderly discussion seeking consensus about possible moves. There really is not need for us to amend,  Roger Davies  talk 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues that amendment is not necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also concur; the remedy does not stand in the way of orderly discussion, therefore no amendment is needed. Courcelles 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)