Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 73

Clarification request: Rktect (December 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Nyttend (talk) at 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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

This relates to the enforcement section

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * confirmation, although there's no real need for it
 * Am I really required to confirm this?

Statement by Nyttend
Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore? Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"? The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.
 * PS I've added Dougweller to this purely because he should be able to contribute if he wants to. He just now blocked the Khamis account due to clear WP:DUCK evidence (he emailed me the evidence; I'm sure he wouldn't mind sending it to you if you care to see it), and a comment from him is the only reason I'm aware of this situation.  I fully back his actions, and I can't imagine anyone other than Rktect objecting to what he's done.  Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller

 * The wording is clearly wrong. It says " Rktect (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)." and then under enforcement "

Should Rktect (talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.". Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This arbitration case long predates any current member of the Committee (I'm the second most senior member in point of seniority and I've never heard of it). The editor in question has been blocked indefinitely since 2009. I doubt very much that the arbitration decision from 2005 is of any current relevance. (In answer to the question about whether we do short bans like this any more, the answer is that enforcement provisions today sometimes provide for short blocks for breaches of remedies, but they also expressly authorize longer blocks for repeat violations.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion arises out of the "may be briefly banned" enforcement provision. It is clear to me that the enforcement provision meant he "may be briefly blocked" for up to a week. These days, we are much more diligent about making the contents of our decision clear, and in any case for us to authorise enforcement as lenient as a one-week block would be atypical. AGK  [•] 10:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems clear that it meant "may be briefly blocked" not "may be briefly banned", but given that he's indefinitely blocked since 2009 and indefinitely topic banned, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Worm TT( talk ) 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The differences between a ban and a block used to be a standard question for admin candidates. The essential differences are 1) a ban formally inhibits the person behind the account from editing Wikipedia through any account, while a block is a restriction on an individual account which in certain circumstances still allows the user to legitimately edit through another account; 2) a block can be undone by a single admin, while a ban can only be undone by consensus after a discussion.
 * While these days when ArbCom imposes a block it is treated effectively as a ban which can only be reversed by consensus - I'm not sure that was the case in 2008, which may explain the wording. As regards duration of blocks/bans - I think attitudes toward the purpose and effectiveness of blocks/bans are continually evolving. The community are reluctant to use short blocks as a punitive measure, though will do so for repeated minor infractions as an incentive to the user to remember what the boundaries are - rather like a low voltage electric fence.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with all the above, though this case is one it might be useful to include in a general review of past cases to see how effective they were. The reports of continued socking concern me. It is in some ways a failure if people resort to socking instead of feeling they can engage with other editors. Though some types of editors will always be so headstrong and determined to get their way that they will resort to socking, ultimately, the only people they are harming is themselves. They should recognise that the best way to advance their views is to set up their own website, not to latch on to and attempt to subvert Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine History (December 2013)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  MarshalN20  | T al k at 18:21, 27 November 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)


 * Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to )

Statement by MarshalN20
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see, where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.

The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see ). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".

To summarize this request into questions:
 * 1) Was the topic ban on "Latin American history" one meant for diplomatic & military history (the classical definition of "history")?
 * 2) Can Cambalachero and I edit articles that only peripherally deal with history (i.e., culture articles such as sports, music, economics, society, food, modern politics, etc.)?

Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
 * I wrote the FA article on Pisco Sour (Latin American culture) after the arbitration committee decision.
 * I helped promote the GA article on Falkland Islands, after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see ). I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?
 * I've also extensively edited the article on the Peru national football team article (Latin American culture & sports article).


 * Everything written by The_ed17 below is really beside the point and, IMO, seems very battleground-ish.
 * He mentions "several previous enforcement and clarification requests", but provides a list of enforcement issues (some of which, unsurprisingly, have been dealt with him) that resulted in warnings.
 * Lastly, my decision to edit (or not edit) Latin American topics is a personal one. At this time, I prefer to avoid the topic. However, my interests may change later, and I am requesting this clarification specifically to avoid further problems in the future.
 * Ultimately, the purpose of the topic ban is not to punish. The arbitration case focused on my actions in Juan Manuel de Rosas and Paraguayan War. Yet, ArbComm branded Cambalachero and me with an imprecise history ban over a huge region (Latin America). A clarification is needed not to "neuter" my ban, but to tie overtly lose ends (and prevent further headaches on this matter).-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that Laser brain's "brilliant" comment reflects a narrow perspective on the situation. All articles on Wikipedia (an encyclopedia ) have some peripheral relation to history (even the Banana article has a history section!). WP:TBAN mentions this and provides specific exceptions on the matter (which is the reason why my block was overturned by the community). In fact, the recent AN discussion only supports the idea that there needs to be a clarification on the matter.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1980 is actually a pretty good standard time for "recent history" in Latin America. For example, in 1980 is when the Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces in Peru ends and "democratic" administrations return to the country.
 * My only disagreement with Cambalachero would be in the inclusion of economics/economic history into the topic ban. Thryduulf's clarification proposal is, I think, good in the level of detail for the type of history ("geopolitical and military history of Latin America").
 * I honestly doubt any of the arbitrators had "football" or any other culture topic in mind when setting the topic ban. In fact, I had no enforcement issues when taking Pisco Sour to FA status or improving Peru national football team. The problems only began when users began to scrutinize my edits and used any excuse to take me to the guillotine. IMO, this reflects an abuse of the system by those users more than anything else.
 * Thus, this clarification request is, in part, also a plea for protection to the arbitrators. I won't point fingers, but it should be clear (by this point) that there is a group of editors bent on seeing me eternally blocked from Wikipedia.
 * Happy Thanksgiving.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Not even I expected that the WP:IBAN would be so blatantly broken . The comments made below clearly break the point: "editor X is not permitted to make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly." I mean, the comment doesn't even concern the clarification request...it's just a bunch of trash commentary demonstrating that the WP:STICK is far from dropped.
 * Nonetheless, I do appreciate the history on the_Ed17's behavior towards me. Looking at the list, it seems the more abusive.
 * Happy holidays, I guess.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Something that has bothered me since the start of this arbitration issue is the view that I used unreliable (or "Fascist") sources in my editing of Latin American history articles in Wikipedia. I haven't . Nobody has ever provided any evidence that I have ever done it. In fact, I never added a single source to the articles in question (Paraguayan War & Juan Manuel de Rosas), and merely interacted in their talk pages or copy-edited the articles. Having learned more about "battleground" and "tendentious" editing, I can admit to having done that and regret my actions in Paraguayan War (and I have apologized for those actions even prior to the establishment of the topic ban). Just, please, don't accuse me of something I have never done in my entire life because that severely tarnishes both my reputation here and IRL. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding Sandstein, I'm inclined to think that he acted in good faith in this case. He's a strict administrator and perhaps not too creative when interpreting the reason for AE sanctions, but is he really at fault for that?
 * I disagree with both of the blocks he gave me, the first because it was a stale matter (and I had already marked out my edits & disengaged from the topic two weeks prior to the block) and the second because its rationality was wrong (although it varies by view, it seems).
 * However, I can't say his actions were without any justification. As WC Monster & Cambalachero have told me, I really need to learn how to edit smarter and stop giving ammunition to those who want to see me blocked.
 * But this is just my opinion of Sandstein as it concerns this case. Nothing more and nothing less.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * AGK's proposal is in the right direction. I don't really understand why economics (and economic history) is getting included into the topic ban. Perhaps it could be stated that lead sections, in topics where the settled range and definition of history is not a primary topic, are not subject to restrictions. Alternatively, the topic ban could simply be specified to Argentine history (following the title of the case) and that would truly do away with most of the problem. There was absolutely no evidence ever presented to justify such a broad regional topic ban in the first place. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.

Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
 * The geopolitical and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983.
 * Other aspects of the history of Latin America that are directly related to geopolitical and/or military events that occurred before December 1983.

For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Everything comes from history, but that does not make every article a history topic. If the article was so clearly within the scope of the topic ban then no reasonable uninvolved editor would object to the sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that topic bans are dealt with on a per-section basis for articles whose primary focus is not within the scope of a topic ban but include some material that is. In this instance MarshalN20 would be in violation of his ban for editing the lead section of the Chile–Peru football rivalry article as it is directly related to military and geopolitcal events prior to December 1983. As the other sections of the article are not directly related to those events (they're about sport and sporting history) he would not, in my view, be breaching his topic ban unless he introduced material that was relevant to the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Several people have commented about narrowing the scope from Latin American history to Argentine history. I have no objection to that at all, but think that the clarification of what specifically is meant by "history" would be warranted in either case. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * per Collect and Sandstein, the coda "This restriction is to be broadly construed across all namespaces" contradicts the "directly related to" part of the restriction, this is a very Bad Thing. Better to replace the last sentence with "This restriction applies to all namespaces" or simply delete it all together (as application to all namespaces is the default anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The restriction itself details how this is meant to be construed - "directly related to X". "Related to X, broadly construed" is just an alternative way of saying "broadly related to X". Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Motion 2 is at best unnecessary, because the wording at Banning policy specifically says:
 * "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic."
 * The fourth bullet for the example used (a ban on the topic "weather") explains this to mean'
 * "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"


 * I say "at best unnecessary" because by adopting it in this case it muddies the waters about whether this clause applies to topic bans where it is not specified or not. You really do not want to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Motion_1:_MarshalN20 Amendment] allowing Marshal to edit the Falkland Islands article
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568855646#Motions Amendment] adding a formal interaction ban,
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141 – one month block
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarshalN20&oldid=580357389#November_2013 Unblock discussion] earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"?
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=582406822#Request_Block_Review_of_User:MarshalN20 AN block review] that led to this. I'm going to quote 's brilliant [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=582245412 comments] here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation:

And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also tangentially related is the Wikilove Marshal has sent out to everyone who participated in the AN discussion, ex. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjakkalle&diff=prev&oldid=582376244] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DESiegel&diff=prev&oldid=582376469] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=prev&oldid=582376699]. But why does someone who [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone_not_using_his_real_name&diff=prev&oldid=582377720 states] that he will not be editing Latin American topics until after his topic ban expires need to change that ban to allow him to edit Latin American topics? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Marshal, for reminding me that I forgot to add links to the clarification requests. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say "", can I ask on what you base that assumption? Marshall has a history of trying to skirt his topic bans. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, trying to litigate individual sections of articles that Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. And the weeks after that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.

First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.

And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sandstein says that the article on the Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly related to the history of Latin America. Actually, it's not so clear: most other users did not think that the article is historical, which led to the unblock (and, if the article is not historical, then it was never included in the topic ban, the noticeboard never modified the extension of the ban, etc). Rather than focus in the process, it may be helpful for this discussion if Sandstein further elaborates why does he consider a football rivalry to be a history topic; and in fact proposes a scope of what is included in the realm of history and what is not. Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I consider that the motion is acceptable, and I have no problems with it. As for the concern of user EatsShootsAndLeaves, the key words in the proposed motion is "directly related". Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * AGK: When a text says "X user is banned from Y topic", it is implied that the ban has all the restrictions, exceptions and circumstances described at the policy page page, unless specifically noted otherwise. The 4º item in the topic ban subsection already explains what you mentioned, there's no need to explain it in the actual ban. As for the case that began all this problem, it may be discussed if the Chile-Peru football rivalry is part of the "history of Latin America", depending on the use of a liberal or specialized definition of history (as seen), but it's very clear and beyond interpretations that it's not included in "the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America". So, I think that there shouldn't be any more problems with this. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.

If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding (WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Arbitration Committee/Procedures requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy.  Sandstein  15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to Cambalechero, my reasoning was the following: The topic ban concerns "articles ... related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". History is, according to our article, "an umbrella term that relates to past events" or the study of such. The article Chile-Peru football rivalry is entirely about past events in two countries in Latin America, including events in the more distant past such as the 19th-century wars mentioned prominently in the lead (even in the article's earliest version created by MarshalN20 in 2007). Consequently, the entire article is related to (and, indeed, about) the history of Latin America (more specifically, about the cultural history of part of Latin America). Per WP:TBAN, the relevant policy, "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic". It follows that MarshalN20 violated their topic ban by editing any part of this history-related article.  Sandstein   17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A comment to arbitrators: As an administrator working in arbitration enforcement, I'm of the view that it's your responsibility to phrase the scope of any sanction such that it reflects what you have in mind. I can only act on what you write in the remedy, not on anything else you might have had in mind. If you enact sanctions using the broadest imaginable wording (in this case, "history ... broadly construed"), then I have to assume that a very wide-ranging application is what you desired. If it isn't, then I suggest that you consider a more exact wording. If you are of the view that only certain types of edits should be prohibited (for example, edits similar to misconduct identified in the case, or limited to certain aspects of South American history), or that administrators should exercise particular discretion with respect to some aspects of the case, then you should say so, too.   Sandstein   17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As regards the motion, since I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about the scope the topic ban should have. But from an enforcement perspective, echoing Collect, it's not clear to me what the phrase "broadly construed" is supposed to refer to.  Sandstein   17:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the second motion is superfluous because it repeats what WP:TBAN states as policy.  Sandstein   16:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett
Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric  Corbett  20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate comment redacted. AGK  [•] 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DrKiernan
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES &#38;L  19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the proposed motion helps all that much. Let's say this passes, and Marshal goes back to the Soccer Rivalry article that led to his block and modifies the lede.  Because that lede introduces the topic as related to history, will he be blocked, or is permitted because the article is about soccer?  ES  &#38;L  11:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @AGK: it's still early in the morning, and I've only had 1 coffee, but I'm looking at something like this in my mind:
 * "...indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This ban also applies to individual sections of articles where although the article itself may not be about Latin American history, the section of the article edited discusses or includes such history."


 * The intent is to permit the editing of sports-related (or other) articles, EXCEPT the sections of an article that distinctly refer to the areas encompassed by the topic ban ES  &#38;L  12:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.

I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.

I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as
 * the geopolitical, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to 1984, or directly related thereto, across all namespaces.

Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:


 * User:MarshalN20 is contacted by User:Cloudaoc that User:Keysanger is reprising a dead issue at War of the Pacific
 * User:MarshalN20 mistakenly believes a comment is allowed under the vandalism exemption and makes a comment in talk [diff]
 * User:MarshalN20 is reminded by User:Wee Curry Monster of his topic ban ,
 * User:MarshalN20 ceases and desists, strikes out his comments and withdraws
 * Nearly two weeks later User:Keysanger makes a WP:AE complaint
 * User:Sandstein blocks User:MarshalN20 almost immediately, with little or no discussion

I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.

In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.

Two issues are being raised here.


 * 1) Blocks by User:Sandstein  Several users have commented that the use of the block tool by User:Sandstein in WP:AE is excessive.  I took the trouble to review his block enforcement log and I have to say that in the main I don't believe this is the case.  I would, however, suggest to him in this particular case his use of the tool was inappropriate.  The first block after the event was not defensible and the second was based on an overly broad interpretation of the topic ban.  My personal suggestion is that unless it is clear that there is an ongoing issue with an editors behaviour he should seek wider community input before blocking.
 * 2) Topic Ban Wording  The wording in the current topic ban is imprecise, in particular the topic is so broad (Latin American history) and caveat broadly construed is open to being interpreted rather liberally.  Per WP:COMMON, I don't consider this would apply to Chile–Peru football rivalry but several admins have acted on the basis they genuinely consider it does.  There is a gulf between the intentions in imposing the topic ban and the way it is being applied.  Improving the wording would be beneficial to all concerned.

I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see that a clarification has been offered. If possible I would suggest that the topic is less broad, given that MarshalN20 took the Falklands to FA status, he has demonstrated his ability to produce good content.  If he would agree to having a mentor to improve on his interaction with other editors it would give confidence in relaxing the topic ban to simply refer to Argentine history. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TransporterMan
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TenOfAllTrades
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.

My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).

If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed&mdash;but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Noting here that clerk action was taken to remove one of the statements as a violation of an interaction ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting any further statements before commenting. (Also in terms of timing, please note that this is a long holiday weekend for many in the US.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still thinking through whether and how we want to clarify the scope of this particular topic-ban, but as a general statement, the scope of a topic-ban (or of a topic in general, such as in the DS context) needs to be evaluated in light of the purpose for which the topic-ban was imposed. With respect to this particular topic ban, oversimplified slightly, the concern from the original case was that MarshalN20 was assertedly using unreliable and non-mainstream sources in articles on Latin American history.
 * It is impossible even in principle for our decisions to define topic scopes in a manner that avoids all possible ambiguity (for discussion of why this is so, please see this post by me, which I urge those interested in arbitration and AE issues to read). Thus, while bright lines are desirable when possible, there are many times when relevant background needs to be taken into account.
 * On a related matter, I note that Lecen, who was the filing party in the original arbitration case, has been blocked at AE for one month for posting a statement on this clarification request, followed by a statement at the subsequent AE request. Arguably, Lecen's posting of his statement on the clarification request violated the interaction ban between himself and MarshalN20, even though Lecen understandably had an interest in a proposed modification to the outcome of that case. However, it bears emphasis that Lecen began his statement by stating, "I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know." Lecen has no prior AE blocks. The closing admin's rationale in the AE discussion cites Lecen's suggestion there that he be blocked for 30 days, but in context that is an expression of exasperation (warranted or otherwise) by Lecen, not a confession or a policy proposal. If Lecen were to appeal this block to us, I would give very serious consideration to such appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewing situation (and withholding comment on the original issue for now), but I would quite like to know why Lecen has commented here in contravention of the current interaction ban in effect against . AGK  [•] 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad: Lecen did violate his interaction ban, so I cannot understand why you think the ban should not have been enforced in this case. AGK  [•] 20:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, my first thought is that Sandstein's block was a bad idea and that it was a good thing the community lifted it; granted, such a block was probably defensible, but nonetheless, I personally think it should not have been imposed: I have frequently said that ArbCom's decisions should be interpreted and enforced using commonsense (although I know there are people who disagree) and not in a mechanical fashion... Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction. For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic)  and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).  Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * not all violations require a block; this is what I meant when I said that our decision should not be enforced in a mechanical fashion. In this case, for instance, a softer, more nuanced approach might have been to remove Lecen's statement, letting him know that he was not allowed to comment on Marshal, blocking him only in the event of a revert... Alternatively, even a short block could have been ok, but a month is overkill, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Motions: Argentine History (MarshalN20)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Motion 1 (scope refined)
Proposed:


 * In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:
 * "the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces"
 * Is replaced by:
 * "(A) the political, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces."


 * Support
 * Proposed in order to implement Salvio giuliano's suggestion (itself taken from Thryduulf's idea). AGK  [•] 11:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dropped "broadly construed" as it conflicts with the preceding limits of the ban. Revert if you object, Salvio and WTT. AGK  [•] 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with this change. Worm TT( talk ) 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This clarification is acceptable. I expect it to be interpreted by all concerned in a reasonable fashion. (I might add that I am still displeased by the situation involving Lecen.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Without more guidance as to how to construe this (absent the broad language) I think this leads to more hair splitting and problems than it solves. Courcelles 03:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 *  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I was inactive on the underlying case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I'm not sure how else to loosen the restriction without just scrapping it. Would something like "all articles with (A) the geopolitical, economic [etc.] and (B) any other aspect [etc.] as its primary subject" work? AGK  [•] 12:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Colleagues: How can we let Marshall edit the remainder of affected articles while restricting him from affected individual sections of that article? I am struggling to think of clear language that would grant the original request. The motion as worded now narrows the restriction, but doesn't answer the original request. Wording suggestions welcome. AGK  [•] 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion 2 (peripheral articles)
Proposed:


 * In Remedy 2 of Argentine History, after the replacement sentences adopted in, the following is added: "On articles where the subject is not within the topic ban scope but one section of the article is within the scope, he is banned from editing that section but not the remainder of the article."


 * Support
 * Proposed per comments section of first motion. This, obviously, is in conjunction with and addition to Motion 1. I'm proposing it as a separate motion only because it does something slightly different from Motion 1, and is a little too significant to propose as a copyedit. AGK  [•] 12:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Withdrawing, per below. This is completely unnecessary, as it duplicates what is already at WP:TBAN.  AGK  [•] 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sensible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Superfluous. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Salvio: How so? AGK  [•] 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mainly per TOAT and Sandstein. This is something which is already covered in WP:TBAN and, so, whenever we impose a topic ban, it applies unless we decide to explicitly exclude it. Finding it necessary to say it in this case only may lead to confusion at AE later: when, in future, we impose a topic ban on a different editor, without including a clause along these lines, AE admins may reasonably be at a loss whether we wanted this provision applied or not. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was unaware TBAN contained provision for such exclusion. Thanks. I now wonder why this amendment request was brought in the first place. AGK  [•] 09:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I don't see the benefit in this clause, as it is covered in WP:TBAN. However, I'm also not seeing the great harm, so won't oppose for now. Worm TT( talk ) 09:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I came to this page just now to propose that we address the concern this is duplicative and could be confusing with a copyedit, adding "Consistent with the standard policy," or the like. But I see the proposal is withdrawn, so I guess we are done here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Fram (talk) at 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
 * Link to relevant decision: 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
In Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard Arthur Norton got three sanctions and one admonishment, all intended to stop his copyright violations. Strangely enough, no actual sanction for making copyright violations in the mainspace was included, although the admonishment said "He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing."

Since then, he hasn't edited a lot until very recently, when he started creating a lot of articles in his userspace, mostly related to subjects where the sources are from 1915 or thereabouts, and the chance of copyright violations is smaller. He has also edited the mainspace, and when he strayed into more recent events, he again immediately created a copyright violation, following the text and structure of the source much too closely. It's not a large one, but it is worrying. Is this sanctionable under the ArbCom cae admonishment, or does it need standard admin sanctions?


 * 

Richard's full text (with link to the source):
 * " In the 2011 American superhero film "Captain America: The First Avenger" as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey."

Copyrighted source:
 * "As Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a flag-clad supersoldier, he is constantly rejected due to his numerous physical ailments and rail-thin build. In order to keep enlisting, he has to constantly lie about his hometown. One of the towns the Brooklyn native uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey."

@SilkTork: no, my request here was more about "if you violate a restriction, you get reported at AE; but if you violate an admonishment (which was the basis for the restrictions, and which has a block threat in it), where do you get reported? No problem in taking it to AE (or AN or ANI or whatever), but it wasn't clear to me where this was supposed to go. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@RAN: first, there was no indication in your post that you were restoring older content, which is itself problematic. I didn't check whether you reinserted some older post made by someone else, why would I? Anyway, if you reinsert text, you take responsability for it. Claiming that because Alansohn didn't remove it as a copyright violation, you were free to reinsert it is not a valid defense. But in this case, it is worse, you didn't simply resinsert it, you added the source, so you should have seen that the text you reinserted and the source were basically identical. If you are not able to spot such similarities when sourcing two sentences to a short article, then we have a problem. If you did spot the similarities but didn't see a problem with them, then you have an even bigger problem. Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@All: At, where I warned RAN about a technical violation of his restrictions, which I didn't bring here (something which was not really appreciated however), he compared me to Javert ("You certainly are the Javert of Wikipedia."), which I considered a personal attack and stated as much in my replies there. For him to repeat this here, in his reply, repeatedly, is unacceptable behaviour. I try to make comments about the edits, not the editor, and certainly not in such a deliberately provocative manner. Can someone remind RAN that such comments are not acceptable? Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@NE Ent: don't be daft. When you add a quote in quotes, with the source, then you aren't making a copyright violation (if it short and relevant for the discussion, as it was here). I didn't claim the text as my own: RAN did. Please don't disrupt ArbCom pages to make an incorrect point, like you did here. I've reverted your change. Fram (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Norton
User:Javert User:Fram is 1/3 correct. User:Commander edit on December 3, 2013‎ added "In the 2011 American superhero film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey." It was deleted as unreferenced by User:Alansohn. It was not deleted as a copyright violation. I then restored it and added the reference in this edit on December 3, 2013‎. If User:Alansohn had deleted it as a copyright violation and not as unreferenced, I would not have restored it. Kudos for User:Javert User:Fram for detecting it, but it would be nice if he showed the whole story of the edit. Instead he showed 1/3 of three edits in succession, as a "gotcha" moment, to get me banned from Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe this would be a good time to consider lifting my ban on article creation in Wikipedia space. I have 90 articles waiting in my user space at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I am sure User:Fram has already looked at every edit in the creation of them in the hopes of getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. If he had found a problem he would have mentioned it here already.

@Hobit: Don't forget where he recently warned me after I adjusted the contrast on an image already loaded in Wikipedia. It is clear there is animosity and he wants to get me permanently banned and has been working toward that goal ever since I had my first run-in with him at AFD several years ago. I think an interaction ban would be in the best interest of both of us. That way he can spend more time editing and less time watching every edit I make. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: If you think Patch Media is an unreliable news source, you should work to have it blacklisted. Patch media is a hyperlocal news outlet owned by AOL. The writers are underpaid, but payed, and there is editorial vetting of articles. It is not a personal blog. And of course, anyone who saw the movie would recognize that is correct and not in need of a retraction by Patch. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken
@Newyorkbrad - I don't quite see how you can agree with both SilkTork's and Salvio's comments as they appear to me to be somewhat contradictory. Could you explicate?> Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Alansohn
I've never been a fan of these fleeting references to a place, usually of the sort that reads "On Glee, Adam Lambert's character, Elliott 'Starchild' Gilbert mentioned that he was originally from Paramus, NJ", which I removed in this edit. A statement about Captain America had been added several times, which I removed each time as an unsourced fleeting mention( see here, here for a few recent examples). Most recently, it had been reinserted here. After I had removed it (yet again) here, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reinserted the material in this edit, finally adding the reliable and verifiable source needed to support the claim, one that specifically mentions the movie and associates it directly with Paramus. I was still wary, but I looked at the source and came to the conclusion that it supported the statement. If I had felt that it hadn't been an appropriate source, I would have removed it; It was appropriately reliable and verifiable. I read the source word for word and if I had thought there was a WP:COPYVIO issue, I would have removed it; I didn't see a COPYVIO issue. User:Fram's analysis shows that there is some overlap between the source and the material that had been added to the article, but this is at worst a close paraphrase, and the close paraphrase was by User:Commander edit. RAN's actions were intended to add the source that I had specifically indicated as missing, and if I hadn't deleted the edit as unsourced there would be zero issue here; RAN would have only been adding the source, not assuming responsibility for Commander edit's edit with what may be a close paraphrase. I do understand how an editor could see this as a copyright violation or a violation of arbitration terms, but having been personally responsible for the edit that effectively burdened RAN with the claim of a COPYVIO issue, this was not in any way an effort by RAN to insert material in violation of a copyright, but rather appears clearly to me to be an effort to finally add a source to the article for a claim that had been added over and over again without one. RAN deserves credit both for his efforts to address the concerns raised via arbitration and for his efforts to add appropriate references to an unsourced statement. That the two issues sadly overlap and combine in one claimed incident is at worst an inadvertent reinsertion of someone else's possible close paraphrase, and is simply not the type of COPYVIO that is relevant to the arbitration enforcement. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent
I personally don't care about copyright to the extent many Wikipedians seem to. It's not going to be "The end of Wikipedia." (Fair use, no economic damages necessary to win a case in court, DMCA...)

But if RAN's reversion with a source of a close paraphrase is an inadvertent copyvio, logically Fram's copypaste of the full quote is an intentional one. (I've removed it; will be interesting to see if any reverts the removal and what justification they provide.). NE Ent 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually -- just learned this from a similar discussion on ANI -- policy NFCC states fairly clearly copyrighted material is only allowed in article space (except for exemptions, which do not currently list this forum). NE Ent 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Hobit
I'm running on very little sleep, but I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. First, while NE Ent's point about Fram's copywrite violation was perhaps meant tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up a very relevant point. Fram quoted the article in it's entirety to make his point and no one batted an eye. If it were a 2 page document, I think folks would have rather rapidly redacted it (and I doubt Fram would have done any such thing). But no one (other than NE Ent) seemed to mind even though the case for fair use is much weaker here--there's no way all the points of WP:NFCC are met here. I'd argue that it's because it is such a short quote.

There is serious discussion about sanctioning someone for that short a quote which was simply restored. We've got a respected editor who reviewed the edit and saw nothing amiss either. Shall we sanction him also? He too checked the source.

I feel that RAN is 24601. Yes he broke the law. But now he is being persecuted for things when others (Fram in this case) are doing even worse things in front of ARBCOM. The point isn't that Fram has done anything horribly wrong, the point is that what Fram did is in every way worse (entire article directly quoted, not in article space, etc.) and no one cared. It's like yelling at someone for talking too loud in a library.

And Fram wasn't aware that RAN was restoring text from another editor when he brought this case here. Fram has been stalking RANs edits. He's prodded a disambiguation page in the last couple of weeks when he only found because RAN had created it. I'd urge the committee to direct Fram to stop following RAN's edits--if there is a problem, someone else will notice. Fram is following around someone who is effectively on probation just waiting for him to screw up and breathing down his neck. This isn't helpful and it boarders upon harassment. Long ago I asked Fram to stop following RAN around (years ago?). This isn't something anyone should have to put up with. Fram is by-and-large a reasonable person, but when it comes to RAN everything seems to get blown out of proportion. It's quite plain that he'd prefer RAN be banned. If someone followed all of your edits that closely, they'd find something problematic. And you'd get frustrated as heck.

I've tried to run a wikistalk tool to identify the interactions and I'm not being successful (things are very slow, perhaps because these editors both have a massive number of edits). Perhaps someone else can get it to work.

Sorry for the rant (did I mention I haven't slept much?), but this has been a problem years in the building and it needs to be addressed. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This looks to me like a question for AE. That's either an infringement or not - and if it is, then a decision by AE can be made as to the response. However, if the question is if the wording "continued violations" implies that just one more violation would immediately result in an indefinite ban, then I'm not sure it does. I think the wording would allow consideration of each situation, such that a single gross violation may result in an indefinite ban, while a single example of borderline infraction may result in a stern warning and/or a brief block.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that admonishments cannot be directly enforced at AE, because, doing otherwise, would pretty much obliterate the difference between them and the other, more serious sanctions ArbCom may impose (such as topic bans, whose violations may lead to blocks). If the sanctioned editor perseveres in disrupting Wikipedia after (and in spite of) the warning, then it's possible to ask for an amendment of the case which may impose enforceable restrictions; until then, however, it's better to just ask for standard admin actions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording of AE is "breach of the remedies", and this particular remedy is worded "...continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing." I think that if the wording had been left purely at an admonishment, then I'm not sure we would be discussing this - but that the admonishment carries a block warning for violation does seem to me to allow AE enforcement at the discretion of AE admins; though I take your point that admonishments should be differentiated from direct sanctions. If there is some doubt about if the block warning for violation is enforceable by AE, then perhaps we should be looking to clarify if - in general - admonishments which carry block warnings for violations do come under AE.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, what matters is the expression "are likely to", which does not really authorises AE admins to impose blocks (otherwise, I believe, we'd have phrased it differently, using "may be blocked"), but rather makes it clear that our prediction is that, absent any changes on RAN's part, the most probable outcome will be a block. But that's just a particularly strongly-worded warning, in my opinion, and not a proper restriction... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the two above comments, particularly Salvio's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If Richard Arthur Norton wants to seek a lifting or modification of the remedy against him, he should do it as a separate request, preferably after the first of the year. The request should provide evidence that the problems that led to the remedy's being imposed to begin with will not recur if it is lifted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork and Salvio. If the original decision has made some misconduct unenforceable, an amendment of the original decision should be sought. AGK  [•] 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the admonishment was basically a warning that the community had lost its patience for the copyright violations and that if RAN carried on with them, the community may block him. I would certainly think hard about an amendment, such as the one AGK is suggesting, but as things stand I do not believe the admonishment is "enforceable". Having said that, I certainly have some sympathy for RAN in this situation, sourcing an edit which had been removed in part for being unsourced is certainly a trap I could have fallen into. If we go down the route of an amendment, I hope that it would not be too draconian. Worm TT( talk ) 11:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed this, I think some form of amendment is needed here. What would also be useful is for examples like the one Fram pointed out to be discussed as a 'teachable moment'. Show (by editing the article) how you would correctly paraphrase the source without coming too close to (or copying) the original wording. Distinguish between facts contained in a source (as opposed to opinions) and the wording used to describe those facts. Demonstrate how you would find other sources to avoid the need to rely excessively on a single source. Acknowledge that it can be difficult to work with existing text in articles that may or may not be a copyright violation. Explain how unless you have access to all the sources, have read them all, and have carefully read through the whole article, it can be difficult to be sure that close paraphrasing and copyvios are not present in any article you may be editing. Point out that this is particularly a problem with unsourced text in articles. Fram could then encourage RAN and Commander edit and others to watch for this sort of thing and be more aware of it, both in their own editing and the editing of others. Finally, on a point of order, RAN, Fram is quite right to ask you to stop using the name Javert, that is a personal attack and needs to stop. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @NE Ent, regarding this, I believe it is relatively common practice to quote (within reason) both the original text and the text being examined, when discussing alleged copyright violations. Quoting brief excerpts has always been allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to take your point further, I would suggest raising it on the relevant policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @NE Ent, regarding this, I presume you are referring to this ANI section? What happened there was that someone quoted an entire article from a newspaper (looking at the diff on 21:29, 27 December 2013 at BLPN that is around about 1000 words of quoted text and more importantly is the entire work - a weekly column on news events in a US state). That is clearly excessive quotation. What Fram quoted above may be short enough under the various exceptions. And although the policy may not make it clear, short and relevant quotations in project space, project discussion areas, and on article talk pages are allowed. Black Kite on his talk page in discussion with the editor discussed at ANI pointed to this section of Quotations, which includes the following: "Unlike fair-use images, quotations are permitted on talk pages and project pages where they are useful for discussion, but the requirements listed above should still be observed." Having said that, what Fram quoted here was around 63 words of a 103-word article, that does feel like excessive quotation to me. Maybe you (NE Ent) could raise this on the relevant policy pages if you feel this needs clarification there, or you could discuss with others such as Black Kite? In any case, it would be better to continue such discussions away from this page, as this section needs to be refocused on responding to Fram's original request (which I've done below). Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Alansohn, it is not always easy to add sources to support unsourced text. There are probably numerous instances where an editor added text based on source A, without citing the source, and another editor comes along and adds a reference claiming that the text is based on source B (similar to, but not identical to source A). Whether this is the right approach or not, depends on the exact circumstances. Many times it is better to remove unsourced text and start again from scratch. Carcharoth (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having taken a closer look, the source used here (someone posting on patch.com?) doesn't look like a reliable, relevant, or even useful source to me - standards should be higher for trivia like this, and the material in question arguably should be removed outright. If it is to remain, a much better source needs to be found. So the whole copyright/close paraphrasing discussion seems to have been a red herring. RAN, my view is that here you needed to be more careful when sourcing unsourced text - it is better to reduce unsourced text to the bare facts and source those, and in some cases to remove the unsourced text completely. Fram, my view is that here you needed to look at quality of sources, not just copyright issues. But overall, both these issues are content issues, so you both need to take such issues to the relevant discussion boards before coming here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Tea Party movement (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Xenophrenic (talk) at 21:27, 17 December 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 Xenophrenic
I am presently "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed." I have recently edited the James O'Keefe biography article, which I obviously do not see as falling under this restriction since O'Keefe has no relation to the Tea Party. My edits were also wholly unrelated to the Tea Party. However, another editor raised the question on the O'Keefe talk page which has prompted me to cease editing that article until I obtain clarification here. Please note: I see the phrase "Tea Party" does briefly appear elsewhere in the O'Keefe article, and I have no desire to circumvent the ArbCom case restrictions even inadvertantly, so I have to ask...
 * Does the article James O'Keefe qualify as related to the Tea Party movement for the purposes of this sanction? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky. O'Keefe may not be "officially" assosciated with the Tea Party, but his mentor was Andrew Breitbart and his activities are pretty clearly aligned with the goals and values of the Tea Party. If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando
As the "other editor" in question, this is actually good guidance for those of us on the periphery. In this case, I raised the question not to get anyone in trouble (and I would hope that any admin/arb reading this would see it for what it is and not an attempt by Xenophrenic to skirt the boundaries of the ArbCom case), but because of this specific section in the article, which is about a video release noteworthy because of the NPR associate's comments on the Tea Party movement.

Looking back at the original case, it appears that ArbCom chose not to address the question of what "broadly construed" means. For the sake of reducing inter-editorial strife, I'm hoping some sort of guidance can come of this clarification request.
 * @User:AGK, if that's the case, there is no complaint. The question would then remain what "broadly construed" means when we're discussing an article that has a direct relationship to a noteworthy Tea Party situation as I have linked above.  If "broadly construed" does not include articles with explicit Tea Party relationships within the text, what does it mean?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
"Tea Party" is often used in daily conversation in America imprecisely and usually pejoratively to indicate anyone sufficiently the right of American politics. The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts. James O'Keefe would seem to not qualify on that end, except that one of his major claims to fame is a video he released of an NPR executive speaking candidly about the Tea Party. Since the topic ban is on "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" (emphasis added), the presence of the topic as a component of the article on James O'Keefe, activist, renders the Wikipedia-en page James O'Keefe under the topic ban. This is why topic bans are best written as editing subject bans and not page bans. I suggest that the Committee clarify or amend the wording of the topic ban to apply to edits concerning the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, and that the edits in question be allowed, although I think Xenophrenic is better advised to steer clear because of the specific history of O'Keefe's activism --Tznkai (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that someone might be concerned that making bans on a per subject of edit basis versus a per subject of page basis would allow an editor to say, make minor grammar changes in an area they were told to steer clear from. I think it is reasonably obvious that all edits to page concerning a topic are in fact edits concerning the topic.--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, broadly construed cannot also mean unpredictable and arbitrary. Does it also include "patriotism" since the Tea Party movement self identifies as patriotic? How about "Republicans" because they draw support from Republicans or "Democrats" because they are in opposition? How about taxes, a core issue? How about James Madison and the Federalist papers? How about Right-wing politics, conservativism, Edmund Burke? How about Christianity? How about Nazis, since sometimes some loudmouth decides that all of them are? How about white privilege, for the same reason? Evolution, the Bible, and the public education system, individually or as interrelated?
 * Political movements, by their nature, have an opinion about nearly everything, broadly construing them for anything they have thematic relevance with is not only absurd, it is cruel, and unnecessarily so. My definition is not exhaustive, since that is a mug's game, but it is hardly restrictive. Broadly construed was, I think more than anything a signal to administrators to be reasonable in invoking their jurisdiction. Now, I fear, it is a crutch for the lazy administrator and the vindictive partisan.--Tznkai (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I believe you are exemplifying the problem of broadly construed in this context. You are not describing belief of the general public, but the broad constructions of the general leftward leaning politic interested in American politics, which you in turn wish for administrators to broadly construe.
 * Ultimately of course, the Committee (hopefully) knows best what it means, but I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what they say is in line with my elucidation above. All in all I advise fellow administrators to read "broadly construed" with considerable restraint, if only to defend against being used as chess pieces by article warriors, even if that is not what is happening this time. --Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond my Ken, you are of course free to speculate as you'd like on my off-Wiki political leanings, but my talk page or an e-mail is a more appropriate venue. As to construction of the topic, it should surprise absolutely no one that given any dichotomous divide, a group on one end will be more prone to identifying the other end with its least popular groups, while the home-team for that same group will be much more specific. Thus right-aligned persons will naturally be much more particular about the Tea Party than left aligned persons, and the "general public" doesn't really exist as a useful construction, and even if it did, it isn't neutral! This is the sort of danger lurking in general with broad constructions, but it is especially bad when considering political movements since political movements provoke passions and cover wide ground. From a neutral perspective, there is serious disagreement over what qualifies, both formally as the Tea Party, and their "attitude, behavior or politics." The approach Beyond my Ken advances here invites stereotypes and prejudices, two things we (ought to) try our damnedest to bury as editors.
 * I'm sure I'm quite a bit over the word limit, and I don't want to completely sidetrack with point-counterpoint, so if the clerks and Committee will indulge an old-in-wiki-years-fogey in summarizing his point: "broad construction" is asking for trouble in politically related arenas, well written per edit bans are better than page bans in such difficult ground, and the committee ought to encourage administrators to apply restraint and reason in interpreting this and any other ban language. Especially since an admin well grounded in policy often need not invoke topic bans when trouble is afoot.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
The suggestion by Tznkai that "The fairest definition of the topic of 'Tea Party movement' however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts" flies squarely in the face of what "broadly construed" clearly means. Although, obviously, that phrase is (deliberately) imprecise, any clarification of its meaning to come from the committee must cast the widest possible net, and not be hamstrung by restrictive definitions such as Tznkai's. In this case, the "Tea Party" should include everyone Tzankai mentioned, as well as  all  those people to whom it is applied in the common understanding of its meaning. The goal here is not to make some kind of socio-political point, but to reduce disturbance in the editing environment. To schieve that, "broadly construed" must mean what it says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'         &mdash; Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass"If the general public or the press use "Tea Party" to describe a certain person, they do so because it seems to fit the person's attitude, behavior or politics, regardless of whatever their "official" status is.  Such a person is more than likely to create the same possibility of disputatious editing, and should, therefore, be included in the "broadly construed" definition, which is, again, a definition to be used in regard to editing behavior only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai: "Leftward leaning politic" - You are apparently approaching this from your own specific political POV, and wish to keep the definition of "broadly construed" as tightly constricted as possible for that reason. On the other hand, I am concerned about what is needed to keep editorial disruption in this subject area to a minimum, which I believe serves the Wikipedia community best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Essentially, Tznkai is arguing that the committee should interpret "broadly construed" as "strictly defined", which is to say, to essentially ignore the meaning of the phrase and neuter it entirely. To my mind, that does nothing to serve the purpose the remedy was designed to achieve, and, in fact, opens the door to further disruption of the type that brought about the arbitration in the first place.  I would urge the committee not to follow this path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Reading the entry, I did not see an explicit link between James O'Keefe personally and the Tea Party. He simply seems to be a Conservative activist. I would treat the article as excluded from the TPM topic bans, at least for now. AGK  [•] 06:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic, my advice here is similar to that stated by Beeblebrox: "If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away." I would add that if there is doubt you could also ask for clarification before editing any articles that include mentions of the Tea Party. If you have asked beforehand, that will help mollify any concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts align Carcharoth's on the matter of whether there is doubt. As for the case in hand, I think if it comes down to hairsplitting to justify whether something is in the scope of the topic ban or not... it can be included in 'broadly construed'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  RexxS (talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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

Statement by RexxS
I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded

Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following, I to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit: With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary: And followed that up with : Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.
 * infobox provides quick overview of key facts in a predictable position, microformats and structured data - see talk
 * bullshit Undid revision 588111954 by RexxS (talk))
 * "Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else"

I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly was hypothetical about the violation of the remedy? If these sort of remedies have no function, then I must ask what is the point of having them?
 * To the general point, I am not seeking to see Dr. Blofeld sanctioned; I don't believe that sanctioning adults who are long-term editors produces much more than resentment. What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought. ArbCom spent a lot of time on this case and I spent a lot of time explaining this very problem six months ago. The least I should be able to expect is that all that effort was not for naught, but I can't say I'm exactly encouraged by Dr. Blofeld's response. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At 19:14 UTC when you made your comment, the talk page looked like . Anyone can read that and see how far off the mark you are. Once sensible discussion had begun, it focussed on the reasons why that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Subsequently, a broader discussion with several other contributors has continued in a positive atmosphere. Because I complain about egregiously poor behaviour, you think that I need to be sanctioned as well? The problem here is solely that Blofeld attempted to derail discussion from the start. I find it very disturbing that you mischaracterise my good-faith contributions so badly and once again are falling back on stifling contributions as your sole means of resolving problems. You can do better. Do you want to reconsider your view? --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I appreciate the work you've done, but it's not "your FA" and you're not even in the top 5 contributors. Who are these "us editors agreeing on no infobox"? and where was the agreement made? what happened to consensus? Who are these "people like Rexx"? I'm an editor in good standing who has written featured content, as well as contributed to many technical aspects of editing. Does that somehow disqualify me from editing articles that you own? If you don't understand that you can't have a veto over all the content, then you need to learn why we have WP:OWN as a policy. My edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article and the summary was accurate (quoted above). Your mischaracterisation of it as false is beneath contempt. The infobox contains much that isn't in the lead and you might learn what if you deigned to engage in discussion instead of painfully inaccurate hyperbole: "This cult to force an infobox on every article" indeed! Check my contributions: the number of infoboxes I've added can be counted on the fingers of one hand. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're wrong again. I really wish that I didn't have to keep correcting the spin you put on my actions, but I came to the article from Today's featured article/January 2014, read the talk page, saw two other editors asking about the missing infobox and checked the archive. I found no discussion on the talk page about removing the infobox, but eventually I found the FAC where one reviewer was in favour of the infobox and one was against. You have imposed your preference on the article without seeking consensus. Not only that but you fobbed off one editor on the talk page by claiming that the infobox contained nothing that was not in the lead, which we know is not true. I that you were wrong and then  to demonstrate what an infobox could bring to the article. My edit summary on the article refers to my previous post at the talk page, and you can see from the diff values (588111923 and 588111954) that my talk page contribution preceded the addition of the infobox. Is that clear now? Strike your mistake and we can move on - there's no need to apologise. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you have formed far too simplistic a view of "metadata". There are many different forms of metadata, but our infoboxes also provide microformats for some (but not all) fields. Different infoboxes provide different microformats and even the same infobox may have different fields and hence different microformats on different articles. You simply cannot consider the value of an infobox to a given article with a generic argument, for example I wouldn't say that an infobox improved an article if it only emitted the name of the subject. Nevertheless, it is often the case that I have to explain the general principle before I can explain the specifics, because there is so much misinformation and lack of understanding out there. Without wishing to be rude, you demonstrate exactly the problem I may face when trying to help other editors evaluate the pros and cons of an infobox on a given article. In extremis, it is possible that I may have to actually create an infobox to demonstrate the value, as I did on Deepika Padukone. It is a pity that it was reverted in a knee-jerk reaction only an hour later before being of any use in the discussion. There is, and was, no consensus on that article to remove the infobox, and good-faith editors with some knowledge of the issues need to be free to edit without being subjected to unacceptable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Look folks, this request of mine has now reached the point where it's generating more heat than light. These sort of procedings bring out the worst in me and I apologise to Blofeld and Carcharoth for being far too blunt in my replies to them.

I have now seen many more opinions on the general issue of being able to discuss infoboxes in a calm and collegial atmosphere and I am encouraged at last.

As for specifics: Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Talk:Deepika Padukone page now has several other editors contributing and the discussion is progressing peacefully;
 * Dr. Blofeld has kindly struck the remark I most objected to;
 * Blofeld and I are productively discussing our differences by email.

Statement by Wehwalt
New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: I think the question is, whether the remedy cited by Rexss can be used to justify an AE sanction, and that I think ArbCom needs to clarify.  That seems to be important here as glancing at Dr Blofeld's block log, I see he's yet to serve out a block. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. You have a point, as little is served by blocking long term contributors, certainly not ones as active as you.  I don't know what's to be done, but you can't spout off that way. Also, I don't have any rules on infoboxes, and have stubbornly resisted efforts by all and sundry to draw me into the fray.  I'm fine with infoboxes, but they aren't appropriate for all articles.  Perhaps you could strike the offensive language?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Dr. Blofeld's statement, I am inclined to consider this a regrettable one-off incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr: that's fine. I don't care to get in to the rights and wrongs of infoboxes and the proper etiquette, my concern is big-picture, that this has caused huge problems in the FA area over the past two years.  ArbCom's attempt at settling the matter did not, very clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. One more question. He added an infobox and did not discuss it to your satisfaction, I get that.  But why did you assume that he was an "infobox enforcing regular", I don't quite understand that?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. That's fine, if you've worked it out, I can ask no more.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I haven't followed the original case or the ongoing discussions (if any) about this topic, but those who have may want to submit evidence about whether this is an isolated case, or whether incidents of this sort are a recurring occurrence among multiple editors. If the latter is the case, then the Committee may want to consider authorizing discretionary sanctions for this topic, as they already have for pages relating to the manual of style and the article titles policy (in WP:ARBATC). As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification.  Sandstein  23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
If you view the history of the Peter Sellers (here) and John Le Mesurier talk pages you'll see why infobox pushers highly frustrate me and this recent action on another of my FAs is really making me fed up with this website. Perhaps my reaction was strong if you look at it without understanding my previous battles with fighting infobox pushers but I'm fed up of writing FA articles and us editors agreeing on no infobox and then people like Rexx coming along and providing false edit summaries as if the infobox contains masses of useful data. At 18:21 on 28 December 2013 I stated "We decided that it had nothing of value and looked better without it. Infoboxes are not compulsory you know." on the talk page. Just 2 hours 12 m later, innocent Rexx comes along and imposes an infobox ignoring clear consensus and obviously being aware of the discussion, violating what you decided here. My edit summary reverting him, "bullshit", I take as meaning "nonsense" in response to his claim that the infobox was full of useful data for mobile readers when in reality its virtually empty. My response on the talk page did not contain personal attacks, rather an expression of contempt at the Nazi-like cult which exists on the website trying to force infoboxes on every article and told him to do something more useful. I very rarely add or revert infoboxes and care little for the nonsense associated with them so I really don't see the point in pursuing this further. I apologise if Rexx was upset with what I said, but I feel I was more than justified given the circumstances and my history with dealing with infobox pushers.


 * response to RexxS 20:50, 29 December 2013 comment " What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought." Magic, that was quick, you've got it, see the Padakone talk page. If you'd refrained from ignoring the talk page discussion from the outset and joined in you'd have got the civil, collegiate atmosphere you desire, in fact it would have been amicable. You're really oblivious to what is going on on here? Please check the history of the Peter Sellers talk page, you view the recent archive. From your perspective, if as you say is true and you're not a regular infobox forcer my reaction was rude and unnecessary, if you view it from my perspective you'd more than understand what I've had to put up with for basically half a year and how your attempt to add an infobox against consensus between Krimuk and myself and the FA reviewers is yet another bloody chapter in this ongoing saga. It was your timing of adding the infobox. On the talk page Krimuk and I explicitly said we agreed on no infobox yet you ignored what was said and add it. If you expect me to believe that you, somebody who rarely adds infoboxes just happened to add it by coincidence I don't believe you. Had you joined in the conversation I would have maintained "decorum and civility" in discussing infoboxes.The fact that you thought this was worth bringing to arb is another example of the gross time wasting which goes on on this website.If my reaction was completely unnecessary, so was your bringing this here and wasting time. Mark my words, nothing positive is going to come from this arb case, if anything it will result in both of us having action sanctioned against us which are completely pointless given that neither of us regularly add or remove infoboxes and by the looks of it you're going to get me blocked... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt: Harshly? And the point of that would be? It would achieve what exactly? If you're to block/ban me for dismissing an edit summary which implies that something is of great benefit which is in violation of your "civilty" rules as "bullshit" as if that's a gross personal attack or something, then Rexx is equally guilty of violating your rules on infobox enforcement and blatantly ignoring the consensus on the talk page. It would be double standards wouldn't it? Blocking me or banning me from infoboxes will not stop uncivil discussions taking place over infoboxes. I've been civil in the actual discussions about infoboxes aside from my initial explanation of annoyance over the matter and have tried to make some constructive suggestions on how to include an infobox which has more value. The real issue lies much deeper and it's one I believe/hope will be resolved at some point with infoboxes being controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt, you mean my comparison of infobox enforcement to Nazism? Yes I'll strike that, I personally wouldn't find it offensive but I can see how some might. My point was that there seems to be some sort of obsession with adding infoboxes and editors seem intent on brutally enforcing them upon every article even when editors agree on not wanting them. I assumed that Rexx was one of the infobox enforcing regulars. It seems he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he ignored what we stated was agreed on the talk page and turned up and tried to enforce an infobox. If he wanted a collegiate atmosphere and to be treated amicably he should have simply joined in the discussion first and should have avoided what he surely would have known would be a controversial change... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@David Fuchs. Ownership? Editors who naturally put in hours/day/weeks of hard toil on articles, take them to GA and then FA and bother to promote them are naturally going to feel that they have had more input that most others editors and feel protective of them. That doesn't mean that we'll revert every edit made to it. Don't confuse claims of authorship with ownership.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt:My perception of the situation was that like with the Sellers article the infobox "enforcers" have sort of like a cell operation on here and are often aware of where disputes are taking place. You'll get people turning up trying to force infoboxes during disputes and them being reverted. I assumed that Rexx had read my "infoboxes are not compulsory and we agreed that no infobox looks better given the lack of info" and purposefully come along and added an infobox to assert that infoboxes are a necessity and override the preferences of the article editors. I think it was the fact he came along just 2 hours after I said that and added one I assumed him to be some infobox Nazi. I found it disrespectful that my assertion on the talk page of the situation was directly overridden in such a short space of time and in my revert or comment being ultra nice and respectful to him given the circumstances wasn't exactly my first thought. As Rexx says though we've spoken by email and we both agree that it isn't constructive to continue this arb case and won't get to the root of the problem and that discussion in a civil fashion should continue elsewhere.

My biggest concern overall is that this infobox issue has become a major site problem with the disputes and time wasting which can cause unnecessary inflammation and actions. I agree with what the arb decided on infobox issues but in practice this often doesn't work. The majority seem to support infoboxes, however seemingly empty they are and seem to see it as an essential piece of furniture, and as with the Sellers article and other, infoboxes typically end up being added regardless of whether the people who wrote the whole article want one. Given the basic cleanup work which is needed in most articles it's a time sink which is causing editors to leave or storm out in despair, zapping any energy or enthusiasm for the project they have left. I have a feeling that at some point infobox data will be controlled by wikidata and there'll be an option of whether to hide them or not and such disputes will become history at some point, but it might be too late and we'll lose more valuable editors in the meantime.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting a statement, including hopefully an apology, from Dr Blofield. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merely a procedural comment which does not depend on Dr. Blofeld's reply: reminders, just like admonishments, cannot be enforced directly; it's, of course, possible to ask for an amendment to the original case so that either an editor can be placed under a remedy which *would* then be enforceable or discretionary sanctions are authorised, but rebus sic stantibus hypothetical violations of the "editors reminded" remedy cannot lead to restrictions under our delegated authority, though it's certainly possible for an individual admin or the community to exercise their power to restrict users editing disruptively. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm often accused, with justification, of using too many legalisms on this page, but I guarantee that more than 99% of the readers here had to either look up "rebus sic stantibus" or skip over it. And even having looked it up, I am still not quite sure what it means in the context of what you were saying. It might be helpful if you could clarify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we are discussing this, I take the opportunity to apologise if I sometimes use weird expressions; most of the times, it's just a sort of déformation professionelle; in this case, I used "rebus sic stantibus" to mean, literally, "with things being as they currently are". Also,, my use of "hypothetical" here was not meant to imply that using "infobox Nazism" is not a violation of our civility standards; as I wrote, I was merely trying to provide a comment concerning procedure, one that should have been valid, even in future, regardless of the circumstances of the case being examined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My view here is that both editors (RexxS and Dr. Blofeld) have acted against the spirit of the remedy in question. Dr. Blofeld by the incivility he displayed, and RexxS and Dr. Blofeld by both turning the discussion in question into one about infoboxes in general, rather than about whether that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Nearly all the reasons given at the (very short) talk page discussion apply to infoboxes in general, so the discussion was clearly going to end up as a rehash of the same discussions had many times before on other articles. What both editors here need to do is focus more on remedy six: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." To encourage this, I am considering proposing a motion here to restrict both RexxS and Dr. Blofeld from adding or removing infoboxes from articles until such a time as a widespread community discussion has been held on the issue. They would both be encouraged to help set up and participate in such a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @RexxS. That is bizarre. The talk page does now have lots more discussion that wasn't on the page or page version I was reading earlier. Presumably I ended up in some earlier version of the page history. I remember Blofeld's 10:34, 29 December 2013 comment being there, but not the comment you complained about. I can't locate the exact page version in question, but clearly what I suggested is no longer appropriate and I apologise for that (I won't strike the suggestion, as it may be needed at some future date). I did, during the case, suggest that what was needed was a list of examples of best practice, of collegial infobox discussions that focused on the needs of the specific articles, and examples of discussions where consensus was reached on the one hand for addition and on the other hand for removal of infoboxes. Is this discussion on this article's talk page going to end up being a good example to show people in future? My experience is that it is articles on people that often cause problems, as people (covering a vast proportion of Wikipedia's articles) are less easy to summarise in infobox form than, say, technical or scientific subjects. Also, to be clear, I see the arguments that infoboxes provide microformats as a generic argument that can apply to any article, so repeating that in every article infobox discussion is repetitive. It would be better to point to a Wikipedia-space essay that summarises the generic benefits of infoboxes, rather than repeating them every time. Ditto for the generic arguments used to argue for the removal of infoboxes. It is the repetition of such arguments across multiple article talk pages that was identified in the case as a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a restrictive motion, but to me a more concerning point here is the appearance of ownership Blofeld is applying to "his" articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) suspended topic ban


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator) not really, but it's in the form
 * AE admins (multiple)
 * AE admins (multiple)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoslynSKP&diff=prev&oldid=588586948 RosylnSKP]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=588587344&oldid=588542375 AE]


 * Information about amendment request


 * [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute#RoslynSKP_suspended_topic_ban|RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I.

This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history...]]
 * Either delete the "suspended" part (putting the ban into effect), or
 * Change to: "This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended if the consensus of administrators at arbitration enforcement is that it is appropriate to minimize continued disruption to the encyclopedia." (or equivalent).

Statement by NE Ent
The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'm commenting here as an administrator who has also commented about the currently open enforcement request. I didn't follow the original case and have no opinion about whether the Committee's remedy that provides for an automatic topic ban of RosylnSKP in the event of a block is appropriate or not. That is for the Committee to determine, although I would find it surprising if the Committee were to change its mind so soon about a case it decided just a week ago.

Procedurally, I find this request by an editor who has no apparent reason to make it, because they are neither an administrator nor personally involved in the case, unhelpful. It adds an additional complication to processing the open enforcement request. This is not the first time that this forum has been used to preempt or influence an ongoing enforcement proceeding, which makes the enforcement process even more complicated and time-consuming. I recommend that the Committee considers under which if any circumstances it wants to accept amendment requests pertaining to decisions that are in the process of being enforced, and that it clarifies whether such requests mean that ongoing enforcement proceedings should be suspended (which, absent rules to that effect, I assume is not the case).  Sandstein  11:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * RosylnSKP has now resumed editing and has apparently chosen not to make a statement about this request. Instead she has continued to edit in a manner that violates the restrictions that apply to her pursuant to the decision. I have therefore closed the enforcement request with a block, which activates the topic ban. This is of course without prejudice to any changes the Committee may wish to make as a result of this request.  Sandstein   11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike HJ Mitchell, I don't have any particular objections to the structure of this remedy. If the Committee can topic-ban somebody, then a maiore ad minus they can make that ban contingent on a prior block. It is perhaps helpful to remember that in principle, arbitration enforcement is supposed to be a purely mechanical execution of a previous decision, for which the Committee and not the executing administrator is responsible. Administrators are not supposed to exercise any independent judgment except to the extent needed to determine if the conditions for the enforcement of the remedy are met, and perhaps how long a block should last. That's not a matter of "tying hands", it's because the authority to exercise any discretion lies with the Committee and not with administrators. In this sense, the enforcement of "ordinary" remedies like this one is much different from that of discretionary sanctions, where the Committee has explicitly delegated the authority to exercise discretion to administrators. Only in that context are administrators authorized (and required) to exercise their own judgment about such questions as which sanction would be appropriate for a specific infraction. Whether contingent sanctions such as this one are in principle a good idea is a different question, about which I don't really have an opinion. I suppose it depends on the case and the editors involved.  Sandstein   17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Commenting here not as an arbitrator (I recused on the case itself), but as someone who has a passing knowledge of the some of the history here: the underlying content matter looks to be extremely complex. As far as I can tell, the use of both the terms Ottoman and Turkish is valid in such articles, as long as those terms are used correctly. But to use them correctly requires a solid understanding of the politics and history of the region. One of the books I'm reading at the moment is A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Fromkin, 1989). That is by no means definitive, and there are obviously a multitude of sources that can be consulted, but the key point is that both terms can be used in the same article as long as you use them correctly (the fact that multiple academic sources use both terms depending on the context should make that clear). I think the idea that you have to use one term to the exclusion of the other on one article, or even use them interchangeably, is wrong, and that wasn't emphasised enough in the MILHIST discussions, and the arbitration case may have missed some of the more subtle points of this altogether. The key is to understand the sources and use the terms correctly. I understand that arbitration cases focus on conduct, but I'm making this statement in the hope that those editing such articles, and also those carrying out arbitration enforcement, don't draw the conclusion from the arbitration case that the underlying content matter is a simple one. Some editors do, or may, need to be excluded from the discussions, but more discussion of the content issues here will be needed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to work out where RoslynSKP goes from here. What I'm about to say is not intended to in any way excuse her conduct, but is aimed at trying to work out what the impact of this will be on the encylopedia and trying to minimise that.
 * (i) RoslynSKP may herself comment at some stage, but as this is her first ever block she may not be quite sure what to do next. If she does comment here or on her talk page, those responding may want to take this into account.
 * (ii) Looking at the case pages, as far as I can tell she is not allowed to appeal the topic ban until nine months have passed since the close of the case. IIRC, the topic ban covers most of the work she does on Wikipedia (see here for examples of articles she has drafted and moved from her userspace in this topic area). I agree that RoslynSKP needs to demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas (per Newyorkbrad), but would it not be possible to allow an appeal after a shorter period of time than nine months?
 * (iii) There appear to be two draft articles in her userspace: User:RoslynSKP/Gaza school of military strategy and User:RoslynSKP/Allenby's preparations for maneuver warfare. I presume she had plans for other such articles as well. Are these covered by the topic ban and will RoslynSKP be unable to work on these or similar drafts in her userspace for the next nine months?
 * Much depends on RoslynSKP's reaction to the block. If she does begin to recognise what she needs to do here, I hope ArbCom will be able to work out some way of helping her move forward and continue the positive aspects of her work here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum - three follow-up points (A) Neotarf left this note on my talk page. I gave the following reply. Reading the entirety of RoslynSKP's talk page and user page may give more insight into what is going on here. (B) RoslynSKP has appealed her block on her user talk page. Despite the earlier notification of this amendment request, I am not sure she is aware of it - is it possible she missed some of the messages left on her talk page? (C) I had discussed some elements of this earlier with the blocking administrator (Sandstein), and on his user talk page he mentioned a possible need for clarification which he may bring here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D
Given that this edit (which triggered Sandstein's action) can only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1, activating the topic ban seems entirely sensible. Which is a shame as I previously supported only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
Sandstein's action—which seems reasonable to me, given the edit that triggered it and RoslynSKP's lack of response at AE (despite my best effort to avoid a block and automatic topic ban)—might make this moot. However, I'd just like to say that I'd prefer not to see admins' hands bound like that again. What we were faced with was a relatively minor breach of the applicable remedy. An indefinite topic ban for such a violation would normally be considered grossly disproportionate (and, if enacted unilaterally by an AE admin, would likely be reduced on appeal); a short block would be much more likely under ordinary circumstances. In this case, we were left with the choice of essentially letting RoslynSKP off, or triggering a disproportionate sanction that would not normally have been considered.

ArbCom: if it is your desire to remove somebody from a topic area, then, frankly, you are perfectly capable of doing that yourselves. If it is your desire to give an editor enough rope and hope they don't hang themselves with it, then please don't force AE admins to act as hangmen for a trivial misdemeanour. I endorse any proposed wording that gives admins just a little leeway. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RoslynSKP
I have been aware of this discussion, but had not taken part because I simply don't understand much of what is discussed. Now I can't as its also blocked. I am just an editor trying to get through this. Until this block there has never been any indication that other edits which did not change the appellations would also be violations. I did not set out to argue for one above the other, and still resist that interpretation, but to clearly state what the note only alludes to. Nick-D's characterisation that it could "only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1" is completely wrong, and needs to be appreciated in the light of every other comment this editor has made since first contact. If the words of the Arbitration decision can be taken at face value then restriction 1 has not been violated as the appellations were not changed. If a much broader interpretation was implied then some indication of this should have been given to me.

I was about to log off when I got the link to where I was relieved to find Carcharoth's attempt to put the complexities of the appellation question into some perspective, which MILHIST discussion completely failed to do. Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names, none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source. --Rskp (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: As RoslynSKP is blocked, I have copied this statement that they made on their talk page. --Rschen7754 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Free Advice from EdChem
I offered Roslyn some unsolicited free advice from an uninvolved editor here, which others may wish to be aware of. I share Carcharoth's surprise that a clean block log was not noted during the case, and also wonder whether it should not have been a factor considered by Sandstein in choosing the block length. Roslyn may not have the knowledge of blocks and sanctions that is typical of editors restricted by ArbCom. EdChem (talk)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I opposed the remedy in question because it made the unsuspension of the topic ban the automatic consequence of any block; therefore, I'd certainly support this amendment.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't support the "automatic" nature here, I don't support it for the reason of tying hands. I would suggest that we rather enact standard discretionary sanctions for any disruption caused by RoslynSKP and leave the details to the AE admins based upon the specific incident. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the topic ban is now in force, and I don't see any reason to believe its imposition was invalid, I no longer see any need for any modification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I supported the remedy in a "right, you've got one chance and one chance only". If RoslynSKP gets to the point that she should be blocked, she should be topic banned. As such, I don't see that it should be changed. Worm TT( talk ) 09:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disinclined to grant this request, per WTT. AGK  [•] 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Noting that Roslyn is now blocked and if this is not amended the topic ban is now in force. My impression here is that this is a user who was testing the edges and seeing what they could get away with. That being the case I think we can just let this stand as written and consider the topic ban in force. This attempt at a "parole" structure for a sanction does not appear to have worked as intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. We never envisaged that RoslynSKP would have just edited exactly how she did before, consequences be damned! AGK  [•] 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think an amendment is necessary in light of the recent developments. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The recent developments simplify the matter, I don't see an amendment as being necessary. NativeForeigner Talk 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the proposed decision page I expressed concern when we were voting that the "trigger" for the topic-ban needed tweaking, but when there wasn't much agreement with me I let it go. Perhaps I should have made a bigger issue of it at the time. I am not sure whether, by the time of the block, RoslynSKP had finally gotten the message that her editing methods needed to change, albeit at least a week, if not a year or more, later than she should have gotten it. In any event, at this point the topic-ban stands; she has the option of requesting that it be lifted at some point if she can demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why you'd begrudge us not taking up your concern about the topic ban trigger unless you think a ban shouldn't have been triggered by Sandstein in this case. Do you? AGK  [•] 02:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a point a couple of days ago when it appeared that RoslynSKP was likely to be topic-banned before I thought it was clearly needed. Had that happened I would have been troubled. When she pressed the envelope further, my concern was mitigated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd consider this moot now, but it is a useful data point if the time comes to consider this approach in another case. I would be inclined to make the change suggested if we decide to take this approach in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Tea Party movement (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Malke 2010 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)at 00:08, 6 January 2014 (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)


 * Users notified:
 * Arthur Rubin
 * Collect
 * North8000
 * Goethean

Statement by Malke 2010
The 2013 Arbitration case involving Tea Party movement resulted in topic bans for myself and the above named editors. I'd made an edit request at Gun control. It later occurred to me that gun control is an issue for some groups in the tea party movement. Since the topic ban states, "broadly construed," I'd like to know if this article would be considered among those that are to be avoided. The above named editors have all edited the article after the TPm topic ban. I've avoided all political articles as I do not wish to violate the ban in any way. Thank you.


 * Does the article Gun control qualify as one of the pages included in the Tea Party movement topic ban?

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for the commonsense approach. That's an interesting analogy, but Amelia Earhardt didn't make Cookies a political issue. Apparently, the gun thing is a big issue for the tea party movement as well as certain constitutional amendments including the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms. I agree commonsense should be the guide, but when one is topic banned, it's best to ask first, edit second. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad & Carcharoth: Thank you both. That is excellent advice. General topics okay, specific no. Best to stay away from everything until ban lifted. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
No, not covered  If "gun control" is covered by the Tea Party topic ban, then all articles on every issue mentioned in any local Tea Party chapter's platform are similarly covered by the ban. That would be absurd. If I am banned from talking about Amelia Earhart, and I wish to edit Cookies, am I barred from doing so, since Earhart liked to bake cookies? Same difference. Discussion of an issue is not the same thing as discussion about a party that happnes to care about the issue. That said, one should steer clear of overtly party-related subsections, and I know that's dicey, but the world's an imperfect place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
I suggest that before assuming that the article in question has anything to do with the TPm, one might note that "tea party" occurs exactly zero times in that article. In fact "tea" occurs zero times in that article. I suggest that saying it is covered in any part by a ban on TPm is stretching the bungee cord to the breaking point, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Ryan case is interesting. It does not make any reference to him being directly connected with the TPm at all. The only "connection" is surmise in an AP article. The article is not listed in any TPm related categories whatsoever. North8000 made no edit remotely connected with the TPm on that BLP that I can find. So -- no real connection to TPm and the edits had absolutely no connection to the TPm means that side issue is grossly overstated here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tangent by MastCell
While we're on the subject of defining the Tea-Party topic ban, what about ? Ryan has been closely identified with the Tea Party and its agenda by, among others, the Associated Press ("Tea party gets its man in Ryan for vice president"), the New York Times ("Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket"), and CBS News ("Why Tea Party senior citizens love Paul Ryan").

is topic-banned from Tea-Party-related topics broadly construed. Yet North8000 is actively editing the article and talkpage, after being recruited by another editor to "enforce the consensus" on the article. Does the Paul Ryan article fall under the umbrella of Tea-Party-related topics, broadly construed? MastCell Talk 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I agree with the views of the Committee members that have been stated so far. However, I think that it is worth considering (for the future, maybe, but maybe also for now) whether we made a mistake in making the topic ban so narrow. Might it have been a better choice to make the topic ban an American politics topic ban, or a "really, stop dancing around the edges of all this and go edit something about Mesopotamian architecture"-ban. After all, should we really expect someone who has been disruptive at Tea Party movement to be any better at John Cornyn or Libertarianism or BigGovernment.com?  NW  ( Talk ) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
While the Tea Party movement deals with gun control, the topic of gun control is not limited to the Tea Party movement. So, for an editor to edit on gun control does not in any way mean they are editing in the area of the Tea Party movement. Surmise, and extending a sanction based on a surmise so that a sanction becomes sweeping is hardly fair or logical in my opinion. Per Floqquenbeam, the question should be specific. Does this article deal with the Tea Party movement specifically. If it takes the arbitration committee to clarify if it does or not, (and I so no evidence that it does), then the second question to ask is, did the editor know this article falls under Tea Party movement. Giving the editor the benefit of the doubt given even the arb committee is discussing this means, in my mind, the editor should be warned to be careful not sanctioned. But as I said in this case, there is no evidence that the article falls under Tea Party movement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * In my view, edits about gun control in general would not be covered, although edits about the specific issue of Tea Party members' views on gun control would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad, so the advice seems to be that if those banned from the Tea Party topic want to edit any article not directly on the Tea Party topic, but where this movement and its policies are mentioned, they should do so with caution and with the topic ban in mind. It may be easier to find something else to edit. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand why people might think gun control (and Paul Ryan) could be covered by the tea party topic, but I believe they're both far enough removed that they really shouldn't be. If someone who is already topic banned from TPM articles is causing trouble at articles on a slightly-related subject, I don't think the community needs to start at ground zero for the new topic in trying to change the behavior, but as a straight-up "is it covered or not" question, I would say no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. There are certainly places where the topics of gun control and the Tea Party intersect. Those places are not somewhere for users subject to a topic ban to be editing, but the broader topic should not be off limits. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with my learned colleagues. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As do I. NativeForeigner Talk 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Fæ (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Fæ (talk) at 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to "Unblocked by the Arbitration Committee" statement

Statement by Fæ
This request was first raised two months ago at AC/N link when I was advised to re-raise it here after the elections.

At the beginning of last year Arbcom accepted my appeal but at that point introduced the restrictions:
 * 1) topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
 * 2) topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

I am requesting that the restrictions are lifted as not being of practical benefit to the project, in particular they are a key reason why I am avoiding offering my experience and volunteer time for training events or content creation projects that would improve the English Wikipedia. As an example of how difficult these broad restrictions are to comply with, in November 2013 I ran a one-off presentation and workshop with Kings College London as part of a UK "Women in Science" series of events; these events are widely seen as a positive step by the Wikipedia community and a positive story by the global press with regard to addressing perceived systematic gender bias for Wikipedia content. During the event I created a stub for Susan Lea, a professor of psychology at the college, as suggested by attendees, during the same event this was developed. It never occurred to me this may be an issue and it was only later that I realized that Lea's research covers sexual violence and rape.

Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed, I focused my volunteer time during 2013 on Wikimedia Commons, where I have uploaded over 160,000 photographs, and on request supported the Welsh Wikipedia where a continuing cooperative project has resulted in my uploading 2,700 requested book covers with 700 new articles about authors being created (some are authors on LGBT topics, though I have not created the articles). Apart from a handful of related image renames or behind the scenes OTRS work, I remained retired as a Wikipedian during 2013.

I have a long running interest in LGBT history and archives and I am at an informal exploratory discussion stage with a London college and planning to contact an independent library/archive I helped a few years ago, for a volunteer project I hope get off the ground in early 2014 (in advance of Wikimania 2014) that would help English Wikipedia content with media and previously unpublished source material, and could itself support the case for funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. I aim to get a proposal completed by February. By its nature a LGBT project would involve articles about events and living people (being from the 1950s to the current time) and LGBT material would be considered under the broad topic of sexuality.

Note, I have an approved project grant from WMUK which supports Commons batch upload projects during 2014. Should there be a suitable opportunity to batch upload LGBT archive material, it is likely that it would be covered by the current grant.

I hope this request can be handled in a respectful way, especially considering the off-wiki attention that this topic tends to attract. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Worm That Turned&mdash;My focus has been on other projects, partly due to being concerned about how wide the topic ban of sexuality broadly construed is. You may wish to consider my Wikimedia work as demonstrated by some of my 2013 projects: Aeroplanes, LACMA (art history), MOD, Welsh books. These and my other projects have generated huge amounts of valuable educational content. In addition my long term role on the GLAMwiki Toolset steering group has resulted in Wikimedia tools which are about to generate many millions of high quality media assets for Wikipedia in partnership with many international leading institutions.
 * @Beeblebrox&mdash;As an example the difficulty of how broad "sexuality" is, I was at the Tate Britain exhibition on Art Under Attack this afternoon and was particularly interested in whether we could get versions of the New Scotland Yard letters from 1914 carrying warnings about suffragettes known to have made attacks on artworks, and so reasonably improve Wikipedia's articles about WSPU members. I believe any work such as this, potentially in partnership with the British Museum and Women's Library would be impossible for me to support under the current restrictions. In terms of past problems, I believe you are probably referring to edits I made back in 2010 or earlier. I have made well over 1,000,000 edits on various Wikimedia projects in the 3 years since then. In terms of others wanting my support, I have a planned training and workshop day with the National Maritime Museum and other museum staff next month and should also get on with spending the WMUK project grant later this month, none of this volunteer work is made easy with a broadly construed topic ban making impossible any edit to the English Wikipedia touching topics such as women's rights, or notable figures in naval history who happen to be of LGBT interest (there are many). You may wish to consider how well followed my edits are, giving you some assurance that any problem I create would be likely to be rapidly flagged, in all probability both to me and many others.
 * Related to this point, I would like specific short term permission to make an article about an 11th century B.C. statue in the British Museum that one of my historian friends asked me to take photographs of for an undergraduate course; it was always my intention to create a Wikipedia article about this unique statue and I am unsure how else would be appropriate to ask for a specific waiver, and this may prove a good example of my editing strengths to support a later full appeal. This is in the BM catalogue here and my photographs were published on Commons at Category:Assyrian statue BM 124963 in June last year. The good quality cuneiform inscription (for which my photographs appear to be some of the best published records as even the BM only has one partial photo) is a key document from Ashur-bel-kala's rule.
 * @Nick-D, thanks for the feedback, however I believe you are being rather unfair on this criticism as you are referring to a batch upload project completed in February 2013, in fact the IWM uploads were my first project which I was motivated to start after the death of Aaron Swartz, and there have been many other better managed batch uploads since then. If you check the project pages above, I put a great deal of careful attention and cooperative discussion on how best to add useful categories, descriptions, metadata and find specific and useful file-names for my uploads. If you check my Commons talk page history I put significant effort into improving and testing alternatives when my fellow contributors raise concerns. For more relevant history, you may want to check my user page on this project where there are links to my past excellent FA and GA work before the Arbcom case.
 * I note your separate question on Commons categories, so I guess you are happy with my current work on file naming. Around 95%+ of the US Department of Defense uploads have reasonable categories on upload based on heuristics I have carefully and cautiously built up over the last 8 months and published on-wiki, with a reasonable community consensus behind the project, and those with no categories are flagged to me during upload; in fact they result in a tab popping up on my browser showing the image page so I can manually add a category if I wish. In contrast the related UK Ministry of Defence batch upload project has no automated categorization as a deliberate choice, as explained in the main project category. I think this question is now a long way from the topic of this request, so if you would like to help me and others with feedback on these batch uploads, I suggest doing so on Commons rather than on the English Wikipedia.
 * @Thryduulf, my reason for asking to remove the restrictions was that I do not believe that they serve to protect or improve the content of the English Wikipedia. With regard to BLPs, this was about a reference I added to an article in July 2011, which was at the time was removed after discussion rather than dispute resolution, and was not part of a pattern of problematic BLP editing; in fact if you are looking for evidence for my positive work on BLPs, you can find some by going to User:Fæ/Underworld/Backlogs where you can see a long term BLP specific project I ran to add reliable sources to BLPs in order to overturn PRODs. We are now in the third year since that regrettable problematic edit, and I would like to return to normal editing and help the Wikimedia movement through my interest in working with GLAM partners. This becomes a sad non-starter if I have to start off by explaining that I am considered unsafe to edit articles or feel obliged to repeat unpleasant details of my long term internet harassment which I would rather forget. I think everyone is aware that my edits here will continue to be scrutinized and made part of the 4 years of off-wiki live commentary about me. In this context I have no doubt that any edit I make that may be interpreted as against any guidelines or policy would be rapidly escalated, probably resulting in the harshest possible sanctions, without needing edit restrictions to enforce it. Perhaps you can understand how this has made returning to helping create content on Wikipedia a depressing prospect for me over the last year.
 * However I am happy to be pragmatic, if this can provide a way of restoring my confidence enough to follow up on making proposals for LGBT projects with outcomes before Wikimania, without misleading any archivist or librarian I am in discussion with by making commitments for creating Wikipedia content that I would later be unable to deliver on.
 * Perhaps for the moment, we can consider a simple clarification without requiring Arbcom to agree any amendment that:
 * Articles relating to LGBT and other rights history and associated culture that do not focus on living subjects, even if they contain references or details on living subjects, are outside of this restriction for example GLF, Campaign for Homosexual Equality, Women's Social and Political Union, Stonewall (charity).
 * Creating or editing BLPs where a sexuality connection was not apparent, such as happened with Susan Lea will not be considered an infraction. I am happy to pre-emptively report on similar accidental situations should this occur again, if there is a procedure for doing so; in fact it would be immensely helpful if an Arbcom member were available to help interpret the broad editing restriction so that I can run any project proposals past them for comment.
 * Non-sexual pre-20th century images and images of pre-20th century artefacts and artworks are outside of the intended scope of the restriction. For example the 22,000 art history images at Images from LACMA and the previously mentioned 11th C. BCE statue without obvious sexual content; i.e. a symbolic goddess of love is not strictly sexuality, but a photograph of a 1st century Roman good-luck phallus charm would be within the sexuality restriction for images.
 * Historic political documents, political posters and official portraits or public group photographs as part of political organizations or historic protests that have a focus on human rights rather than a focus on sexuality are outside the intended scope of the restriction. This distinguishes images of sexuality from images that have educational value in illustrating human rights relating to gender and gender identity. For example the 20th century portrait File:Emmeline Pankhurst I.png. For the moment I would imagine that my restored historic photograph of Park and Boulton File:Park and Boulton (Fanny and Stella) restored.jpg or my restoration of Cecil Beaton's wartime photograph (probably not intentionally related to sexuality by Beaton, but later interpreted as homoerotic) File:Life at Sea on Board HMS Alcantara, March 1942 CBM1049 adjusted.jpg, would remain within the restriction as these would require an amendment rather than a clarification.
 * By the way, I know a lot has been read into me raising this request on the Bank Holiday. From my viewpoint this was a quiet day when I could write out a request, as I was previously advised by Arbcom members to do on the noticeboard. It was not my intention to pointily create this request on the first day the new committee was available. I am normally more politically astute than to do something so stupid, in this case I was let down by my lack of awareness of how the Committee works.
 * I believe the example of Sandi Toksvig as a BLP that I could edit is unhelpful. Should I touch an article about someone like Toksig with a public profile as an advocate for LGBT rights, I have no doubt this would be evidence for someone to request an edit block due to being in contravention of Arbcom's restriction. It is not FUD when I explain in this request that this restriction depresses me, and this is part of why staying retired during 2013 seemed preferable to editing. I feel it would be seriously unwise or appear misleading or incompetent for me to put myself in the position of putting my name against a LGBT related funding proposal for Wikipedia content creation, or leading a room of potential Wikipedia editors with expertise in LGBT matters, only to have to confess that though I have been creating and editing LGBT articles on the English Wikipedia for 8 years, I am officially considered untrusted to edit any BLP related to sexuality in its broadest possible interpretation, including any LGBT context, when the history of LGBT is fundamentally about the people that made it happen. My main personal driver for risking the inevitable off-wiki abuse for coming out of retirement and raising this question back in November 2013 with Arbcom, was to support my discussions for projects related to gay history month in February 2014. I have been involved with LGBT history and advocacy groups for over 30 years. My interest in Wikipedia will always be entwined with my knowledge of this subject and my personal LGBT network. Yes there are unpaid volunteers like yourself who might join in with an LGBT event, but active WMUK volunteers who are openly LGBT and prepared to use their free time to create LGBT projects and partnerships with LGBT archives and related organizations are in short supply, I would have difficulty naming more than 3, including myself, and I am only aware of me attempting to create any new projects for 2014.


 * Thanks for the response to my clarifications above. I find it deeply depressing that the restriction should now be interpreted to include any article that touches on the general history of women's rights or LGBT history and associated culture and not just BLPs. Having no confidence that I will ever be allowed to support any project outcomes, makes it impossible to proceed with a 2014 proposal for an LGBT initiative supported by the UK chapter, and I shall have to reject the existing request for my support of a women in science related training event later this year as these invariably touch topics related to feminism. The limited number of unpaid UK volunteers prepared to openly work on LGBT projects, means that for the third year running, Wikimedia UK will now fail to have delivered any LGBT friendly Wikipedia content creation event as part of LGBT History Month (in February).

Statement by Thryduulf
Fæ, I would recommend that if you wish to return to full editing on en.wp that you spend some time between now and march formulating a request to narrow the scope of your topic bans rather than removing them entirely. After at least 6-9 months of successfully working with no problems within those restrictions, the committee is more likely to look favourably on a further relaxation of restrictions or removing them entirely.

When you make that request (and don't make it shortly after midnight on the 1st) I suggest you focus on what you want to do, specifically, not what broad categories of material you might have worked on. "Sexuality" is a very broad topic, so there is scope for narrowing it. Identify something specific that you want to improve that is on the edge of the "Sexuality" topic area and propose a rewording of the article topic ban that leaves the core area you were sanctioned for within the scope but allows you to edit your proposed borderline articles. Propose also the addition of a second clause to the image ban along the lines of "excluding images directly related to X", where X is the article topic area you want to work on.

Once you have decided what you want to work on, get some edits to a related area that is outside the scope of the topic ban but which is adjacent to it. For example if you want to improve the coverage of living openly gay UK MPs, first improve an article like Nicholas Eden, 2nd Earl of Avon (died 1985, so clearly not a BLP subject), but make sure you don't work with images for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the best way to ask about a specific exemption is to explicitly ask for a specific exemption. You certainly wont get one if you ask for a complete removal of the restrictions. Regarding the statue, it would not a BLP by any stretch of the imagination so you don't need permission to create the article without an image.
 * Reading only the two links you give, the statue isn't obviously related to sexuality and if it isn't then presuming nobody in your images is being sexual around/with the statue in your images then I personally don't see any issue with you adding, discussing and creating images on the article (non-sexual images of a statue unrelated to sexuality are not "images related to sexuality" however broadly construed). If the statue is related to sexuality, or if its connection is uncertain, then in your shoes I would have asked for a clarification about whether dealing with images of the statue on the article about the statue was covered by the topic ban or not (appeals are limited, good faith requests for clarification are not). If the answer is no, then you're good to go with no worries and no exemption needed. If the answer is yes you could have asked for a specific exemption at that point if the committee hadn't proposed one themselves - I've seen before responses along the lines of "yes this is included in the scope of the ban, but we didn't intend it to be, so we'll amend it/clarify/provide a specific exemption", the Argentine History case comes to mind as a recent example.
 * I'm sorry to say however that the way you have approached this amendment request means that the committee are unlikely to be minded to consider such a request at the moment. That doesn't stop you creating the article now and leaving the images to someone else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (7 Jan) I think it's worth noting that, at least in my mind, there are three sorts of BLPs when it comes to sexuality. There are biographies of people whose notability is primarily or entirely related to their sexuality or sexuality more generally (e.g. Peter Tatchell) and those articles you should not edit at all (imo), although there is no restriction on you linking to these articles where relevant (if the edit your making isn't restricted for another reason). Then there are people whose notability whose notability is entirely irrelevant to sexuality (e.g Michael Rose (British Army officer)) - those articles you are free to edit with no restriction. Thirdly there are people whose sexuality is notable but incidentally so, or where sexuality is only part of the reason for their notability (e.g. Sandi Toksvig). You can edit the parts of those articles that are not related to sexuality, as long as you don't introduce elements related to sexuality.
 * Regarding your comments about WMUK, that is not true at all. There is nothing stopping you delivering a programme related to LGBT issues that are not BLPs, nor one with outcomes on any Wikimedia project other than the English Wikipedia (there are lots to choose from). It also doesn't stop you developing a program where others deliver parts related to BLPs on the English Wikipedia. I am perfectly willing and capable (availability dependent) to work on an LGBT project for example, and as was noted when this came up a few months back on the WMUK wiki, I am not alone. FUD will not get your restrictions lifted sooner. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D
At the risk of seeming rude/ungrateful Fæ, I'd suggest that the uploads to Commons you highlight in your request have had an undue emphasis on quantity over quality. I've recently been working with some of the IWM images you uploaded of British naval operations off Norway, and the fact that they were all uploaded as "File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War" followed by the relevant IWM catalogue number made them difficult to use. The minimal categorisation of the images you've been uploading also do not contribute to these images ever actually being used (for instance, you originally placed these IWM images in only the very broad "Royal Naval photographer" category, and images of aircraft you uploaded in November were placed only in a category for the airport, and not the plane type/serial number which is typically a much more useful classification). While your work in uploading all these images is clearly very valuable and contributed to "my" most recent FA (Operation Tungsten) and what I hope will be my next GA (Operation Mascot), the lack of basic follow through with categorisation to encourage their use raises some concerns in my mind (quite possibly unfairly) about how carefully you'd edit BLPs as it is suggestive of an attitude of prioritising "adding stuff" over "adding useful stuff". In short, I'd suggest that as part of the next unban request you be in a stronger position to demonstrate the quality of your contributions, and not just the quantity of them. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fae, you're still frequently uploading images without any or without useful categories. For instance (selected more or less at random from the last few days) File:Retired German air force Maj. Gen. Hermann Wachter, at podium, deputy director of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, speaks during the Marshall Center's 20th anniversary commemoration 130612-D-SK857-334.jpg (only category is a red link), File:U.S. Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks at the 2013 Joint Women's Leadership Symposium at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Md 130606-D-HU462-074.jpg (originally uploaded with tags asking others to look for categories despite this depicting a notable person), File:U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Greg Miller, left, assigned to the 184th Ordnance Battalion (Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)), Combined Joint Task Force Paladin, poses for a photograph with his son Spc. Grant 130616-D-EN552-835.jpg (image of a probably notable person categorised only to where the photo was taken and with the image not rotated so that it's upright) and File:U.S. Navy chief petty officers assigned to the aircraft carrier Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) talk to petty officers first class selected for promotion to chief petty officers at the Navy 130813-N-HZ247-462.jpg (no categories at all). I acknowledge that many of the other images you've uploaded have had useful categories added from the get go, but it's not consistent. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fæ, The reason I raised this is that you cited your Commons activity as a major factor supporting your application to have the restrictions here lifted. In my view your upload practices there actually reflect poorly on you (especially in regards to taking care with getting small but important details right and following up after the event to correct mistakes and/or improve the quality of your contributions), and so do not really support this application. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt
During the arbitration I commented that people interpreting outing policy focused too much on whether personal information was literally secret, as opposed to whether "opposition research" bringing it up at every opportunity was improper. My argument was rejected at the time, yet ArbCom has since changed course - ironically enough, in regard to someone with an opposing opinion during the Fae arbitration - finding that unduly focusing on another user's personal information was indeed highly inappropriate. I might even say that decision has gone too far the other way. Given the decisive change in how this policy is interpreted, I think it is quite appropriate to consider an early end to a topic ban based on it. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Per the unblock request, the topic bans may be appealed after 1 year - that is 12 March 2014. So, I'd not change anything for now. I am pleased that you haven't run into similar troubles since the arbitration case, but in March I would expect a little more evidence (here or on other Wikimedia projects) that you are unlikely to run into the difficulties that lead to the case. The fact that you've made less than 100 edits to Wikipedia since being unblocked gives me very little to go on, and I'm not active at the other projects to look at how you're doing. Worm TT( talk ) 10:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just on the 4 topics that Fae has raised - I disagree with NYB that (1) falls clearly within the restriction. However, care must be exercised when looking at such articles as they may well have BLP elements - Fae should avoid these elements. On (2), care should be paramount, so I should hope this is a rare situation. As long the article is legitimately created without knowledge of the sexuality aspect and Fae does not adding anything with regard to the sexuality aspect of such people when it's discovered, I would not expect any sanction. (3) and (4) seem fine to me. Agree with NYB's latest comment regarding the grey area, and it would be best for you to leave those parts alone. Also I have no issue with clarifications at this time.Worm TT( talk ) 11:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Recused. AGK  [•] 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Worm. Too early, and while this request explains why you would like the topic bans lifted, there really isn't any indication of why it would be in the best interest of the project and/or why we should not expect to see a repeat of past problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like to re-emphasize that no matter what arguments you make this is still premature and in my opinion should not even be considered at this time. Frankly, filing such a request on New Year's Day smacks strongly of "asking the other parent." Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That being said, I do not find the underlying request compelling regardless of when it was submitted and it seems to me there is little appetite for considering this particular request, now or in March. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this request is premature. Secondly, if I was to consider a relaxation of the topic bans (at the present time) I would want to see a specific, narrow scope request. I'm not sure I'd support such a request, but if I was to consider anything I would want a much more specific/narrow scoped request, with a specific reason. I know you do good work on Commons and elsewhere, but this request is undoubtedly premature, and hence I'd rather not change anything for now. NativeForeigner Talk 06:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with NYB regarding dates, as this seems to now be a clarification. Three and four look reasonable to edit. Two will require significant caution. Still thinking on one. NativeForeigner Talk 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think 1) is very borderline. It's not squarely within the restriction per se, but in editing it it may be extremely easy to fall within the boundaries of BLP. I'd exercise caution, and if there are other topics available, it might be best to focus on those. NativeForeigner Talk 18:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself only, I do not have a problem with considering this request in January rather than in March, and Fae has provided some explanation for the timing of his request (although posting it the very day the new arbitrators started was a mistake). I think the serious issue with this request is that historically there have been issues with Fae's image uploads and edits concerning the sexuality of living persons. I would therefore consider a modification of the topic-ban that would allow him to contribute images in clearly historical contexts, but not images relating to living (or recently deceased) persons. I am unwilling at this time to remove the restriction against sexuality-related editing on BLPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I ask that Fae please respond to Thryduulf's observations above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll address the four categories raised by Fae tomorrow. Thank you for outlining them. Wnt's comments strike me as an irrelevant digression. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fae, your categories (3) and (4) strike me as not being prohibited by the restriction. Items in category (2) should also be okay, provided you don't edit a sexuality-related part of the article. Category (1) probably falls within the restriction so I suggest you focus  more on the other categories. apply. I hope it is unnecessary for me to urge you to stay far away from edge cases, point-making, and boundary testing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Fae, as I think about it, if you were to avoid references to living persons' sexuality in category (1) articles, the restriction would not apply. A closer question is whether the restriction would apply if you wrote "John Smith is the President of X group," where X group is (e.g.) an LGBT rights organization, but you don't mention Smith's own sexuality. I should probably step back now and let other arbitrators comment on your categories (my view still being that as you are seeking to clarify rather than amend the restrictions, the date issue does not arise). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree with what other arbitrators have said so far. Fae, there is good advice being given by Thryduulf and Nick-D. If you follow that advice then I would be more likely to support a future amendment request. If you seek a less broad amendment request earlier than the date suggested by other arbitrators (12 March), I suggest a preliminary note asking whether such a request should be made or should be held back until 12 March (or some point thereafter). Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the above, both that the request is premature at this time, and that when it is the time, I would be much more comfortable with a gradual scaling back of sanctions than a wholesale removal. I would encourage Fae to think about what shape such a scaling back would entail, and also to show more non-problematic editing activity outside the banned areas. Sexuality may be a broad area, but it is not all-encompassing, and there are many areas in which to edit with no risk of falling foul of the ban. I also agree with Newyorkbrad in that the BLP sanctions are the ones I would be least comfortable with lifting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We should either enforce time limits on appeals, or stop including them in our decisions. I prefer the former approach. Decline. (I'm also not inclined to grant this appeal on the merits, for the reasons outlined by my colleagues.) T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. This can probably be closed now.  Roger Davies  talk 09:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)