Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 74

Amendment request: Climate change (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Darkness Shines (talk) at 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
 * Details of desired modification. I want it lifted.

Statement Darkness Shines
Sandstein has banned me from reverting on any article relating to climate change. Even if the edit is an obvious violation of BLP. His rationale for this sanction was to prevent further disruption, however as there was no further disruption from me then this sanction is not preventative. BLP policy is that "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" This sanction is a violation of our policy on BLP. Yes I edit warred, yes I was wrong, but banning an editor from removing blatant violations of BLP is ridiculous. A 1RR restriction would make more sense, if I were reverted by an editor then I would go to the article talk page to make a case.

I suppose I have to point out that Kaj Taj Mahal is a SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to denigrate the BLP James Delingpole. Edits such as writing having no scientific or intellectual qualifications himself to make this accusation. Or calling him a mental-midget. Or violating NPOV and LABEL by adding a section title Anthropogenic climate change denial The sanction imposed on myself means the first diff I presented here could not be removed by me, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The article protection was removed before I was sanctioned, and there were no reverts by myself on it. Please explain where this "continuing disruption" was? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein, please read what I have written. I said that if I am reverted then off to the talk page I go, how exactly could I do 1RR a day under that restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

,, . At 13:28, 15 January 2014 editor IHaveAMastersDegree, added this to a BLP "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy thoeries and has been cited as an example of conspiracy theories in science that "target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies"", the source does not mention Delingpole, I rasied this at 13:41, 15 January 2014 It was finally removed at 16:56, 15 January 2014, so that BLP violation sat in the article for an hour and a half, because had I removed that content it would be deemed a revert and I would be blocked. And if the next time the BLP vio is worse? Does it sit in an article for hours in the hope someone will come along to remove it? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For three days this BLP violation has sat in an article. I am unable to remove it and am hoping someone will see my post on the talk page, thing is, Delingpole did not write the blog post the authors of that paper are referring to, it was a guest post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Say what? Every BLP violation I have pointed out has been agreed with by other editors that they were BLP violations. The diffs I presented prove the exact opposite of what you are saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, where have I said those violations were "outrageous name-calling and vandalism" I am pointing out obvious BLP violations, which I cannot rectify because of this sanction, are you really OK with BLP vios sitting in articles for days at a time? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Please note that DarknessShines appealed his restriction to WP:AE this past week, where his appeal was reviewed and declined unanimously by 5 admins. Here's a link to the appeal, as I don't see one provided above. MastCell Talk 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
While admins are allowed to extend editing restrictions to include a ban on removing BLP violations and vandalism, it is excessive for Sandstein to have both removed the exemption and subjected DS to a 0RR. A block for edit-warring given the contentious nature of the BLP claim, simply removing the exemption, or even a 1RR with no exemption for removing BLP violations and vandalism would have all been better geared towards addressing the cause of the problem without needlessly barring constructive editing in the topic area. Going straight to a 0RR with no exemptions is unduly severe.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio, it is not reasonable at all. It is completely overkill to give someone an indefinite 0RR with no exemptions in a topic area for a single BLP dispute over a single article when there are no prior sanctions within the topic area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kaj Taj Mahal
His behaviour at Talk:James Delingpole was rather disheartening, and precludes me from supporting any relaxation of sanctions. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Collect: I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with whose behaviours you are talking about (perhaps you could inform me), but my reservations about Darkness Shines' sanction-lifting comes from the template fiasco, for which he was admonished for here. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to add one more thing, I think this baseless SPI request is somewhat indicative of his maturity level. This sort of ad hominem targeting lowers my confidence in his ability to edit these types of sensitive articles without provoking a conflict. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Darkness Shines: I have many varied purposes on Wikipedia. Just one of my aims isn't to denigrate, but to improve the accuracy and neutrality on the James Delingpole article.  --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
Please note the talk page discussions on "section titles" at that page  and at the corresponding BLP/N discussion wherein I fear that some of the disputants complaining most loudly about DS seem to evince essentially the same behaviour as they dislike in him. I suggest that the equivalent sanction actually be extended to each of those editors de novo by motion as a result in order to calm down what appears to be a relatively toxic atmosphere in that corner of the Wiki-world. My sole connection here is suggesting a neutral and clear section title, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I recommend that this appeal is declined, for the reasons it was declined at WP:AE. I refer to my comments there. This additional appeal is forum shopping.

I did not impose a one-revert restriction, as now suggested by the appellant, because such a restriction would be insufficiently preventative. Even at the rate of one revert per day, edit wars can still be carried out. Especially in the case of particularly argumentative and wiki-litigious editors, I prefer imposing sanctions that are as simple as possible and contain as few loopholes, exceptions and caveats as possible.

The conduct of Kaj Taj Mahal has been the subject of a separate, now-closed AE request, and does not concern this appeal.  Sandstein  09:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
@: Darkness Shines has already shown that he can't exercise the sort of judgment your proposal would require (which is why the sanction Sandstein imposed didn't give him room for it). Moreover it's not necessary: if Mr Shines perceives an egregious BLP violation, he can bring it to the attention of other editors and it will be dealt with in short order. This has already worked:, followed by. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the things one can seen in DS's posts above is the intention to deal with BLP issues that are not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". This is the point: he cannot effectively make the kind of judgment that would be required to cope with a less stringent restriction.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is, they're not "outrageous name-calling and vandalism". You seem not to understand the less stringent restriction that might be considered for you.  That's one of the reasons the more stringent one was imposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline The purpose of your restriction is to prevent disruption. I find this diff persuasive.   Roger Davies  talk 09:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @ For information, the words I used were "to prevent disruption" not "continuing disruption". It is a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to prevent disruption in topic areas that are very prone to it.  Roger Davies  talk 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Darkness Shines is an editor I've found to be often right; the problem is that he's sometimes right in the wrong way and, so, ends up sanctioned. In this case, speaking personally, I'd have imposed a slightly different sanction (one allowing for one single revert for obvious BLP violations), but, when adjudicating appeals, we are not supposed to substitute our own judgement to that of the imposing administrator. We can only determine whether the use he made of the power we delegated to him was reasonable and, in my opinion, it was. So, for that reason, decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @TDA, considering that a. this is not the first time Darkness Shines has been placed under a revert restriction and b. the disruptive edits which led to the imposition of this sanction concerned material which DS wrongly considered a BLP-violation, I disagree with you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines should not be reverting legitimately disputable material, even if it is his personal opinion that the material is violative or problematic. However, I find a sanction that prohibits the reverting of even outrageous name-calling and vandalism to be troublesome, except in truly exceptional circumstances, and wonder if the sanction might be rethought to that extent. Criticism of this appeal as forum-shopping is unfounded as the administrator who closed the AE thread specifically told Darkness Shines that he had the right to bring this here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Salvio sums this up well. I would probably have put forth a different sanction, similar to the one he describes, but that's not the question. Climate change is under discretionary sanctions, the sanction imposed might well be more excessive than I would have imposed, but the logic behind it is reasonable. I'd decline this request. Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline; the sanction is well within admin discretion under the circumstances. T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances leading to it, the sanction applied is well within reasonable administrative discretion. Decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine History (January 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  MarshalN20  | T al k at 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Casting Aspersions
 * MarshalN20 editing behavior
 * Cambalachero editing behavior
 * Cambalachero editing behavior

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

Statement by MarshalN20
This request for the Argentine History case is primarily a clarification petition, but may end up with additional amendments to the case depending on how the solution to the problem can be achieved optimally (I will provide an amendment suggestion). This situation is unacceptable. It is particularly harmful to my editing in Wikipedia, specially related to my nomination of featured articles (such as the recent Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive4). Therefore, I again return to the arbitration committee in search of protection from harm. Thanks in advance for the help. Please take my proposals for solution as recommendations (not demands). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Background: The findings of the Argentine History case placed my editing behavior as having exhibited "tendentious editing and battleground conduct." Due to this, I was topic banned indefinitely with the possibility of appeal after one year.
 * The Problem: The convoluted nature of the case permitted the escape of an inappropriate story that continuously accuses me of having added "fascist sources" to Latin American articles. This was never proven, and the findings do not mention anything about it. Thus, this "Black Legend" goes contrary to the "casting aspersions" principle mentioned in the case's resolution.
 * Neotarf: Several users have been spreading this story around (the usual suspects), but the most vociferous one has been User:Neotarf.
 * On December 5, Neotarf accuses me of being a fascist (see ).
 * On January 1, Neotarf uses The Signpost to again repeat his accusations . As it stands, it is a direct personal attack accusing me of bullying and adding fascist sources.
 * Previously, on December 4, Neotarf had commented on The Signpost about the case, and basically noted that the information he presented was a "general idea of the topic" (see ). In other words, Neotarf is spreading around an opinion of the case, purposefully casting aspersions on me as an editor.
 * The Request:
 * 1) A clarification is needed that (A) emphasizes the Committee's ruling is related to dispute among editors and not about article content per se and (B) addresses the aspersions of the aforementioned "Black Legend" as it relates to MarshalN20. I would appreciate a mention that no evidence was ever provided to justify claims that MarshalN20 ever included sources in articles, and that MarshalN20's disruptions occurred in article talk pages.
 * 2) Neotarf's 1 January 2014 writing  in The Signpost, as concerning the Argentine History case, needs to be either reworded or deleted.
 * 3) An amendment is needed that provides a more stern remedy for "casting aspersions" (as related to unwanted accusations of political affiliation). The current "casting aspersions" principle does not adequately address the problem because it cannot be properly enforced.


 * Note: I haven't directly mentioned Cambalachero in my post because I don't know his opinion of this matter as it concerns him.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 ---Response to Roger--- 

Thanks Roger. Yes, here are the direct quotes...
 * From 5 December 2013 :
 * "After 3 years of conflict over the insertion of non-mainstream sources written by Fascists into Argentine history topics"
 * "It would not seem reasonable that someone who is being hounded by POV pushers, to the point where they have had to request an interaction ban, should be excluded from meta-discussions about their restrictions."
 * From 1 January 2014 :
 * "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed by the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos'."
 * "The case ended with topic bans for the individuals adding this material."
 * "They were ganging up to bully him."

Notes:
 * 1) The "Fascist sources" accusation is neither supported in the "principles" nor "findings of fact" in the Argentine History case. The case's resolution only commented on the reliability of a single source and the importance of "consensus building". Therefore, the "Fascist sources" accusation is casting aspersions.
 * 2) Hounding and bullying accusations are false, and spreading those accusations again cast aspersions. The IBAN was placed due to "ongoing acrimony between the parties" (per Kirill). T. Cannens also wrote, "continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary."
 * 3) I didn't add sources. In War of the Triple Alliance, I misbehaved during a move request (on the talk page). In Juan Manuel de Rosas, my only major article contribution was the writing of the lead (or "lede" as some like to call it); again, most of my actions there were on the article's talk page. Hence, any other statement made about my actions is false.
 * 4) I haven't "systematically skewed" anything. Such an accusation is absolutely terrible (falling into academic dishonesty).

Neotarf and others get away with this kind of mudslinging by claiming that their "general idea of the topic" is correct based on the Arbitration Committee's decision. A clarification on the ruling, perhaps directly addressing this "Black Legend", would be helpful (so that any further aspersion casting can be dealt with at AN/I). Alternatively, a remedy for "casting aspersions" could be amended into the case in order for any further aspersion casting can be reviewed at the Arbitration Enforcement page (which is more focused on arbitration-related matters than AN/I).

If none of my recommendations are adequate, I would also appreciate suggestions on how to handle this matter (for instance, should I simply take this directly to AN/I the next time it happens?). It's truly bothersome to keep having my reputation besmirched throughout Wikipedia. The IBAN was certainly a great help in stopping the source, but the false accusations continue being spread by users with apparent ties to the involved parties.

Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 ---Response to Roger--- 
 * Thanks, Astynax, for another good example of the "Black Legend".
 * Regardless of what was argued in the case's evidence phase, and whatever it is that the arbitrators ultimately believed, the case's resolution at no point makes mention to "fascist sources". This is because the Arbitration Committee does not rule over article content (In fact, one of the case's principles encourages "consensus building" as the way to resolve content disputes).
 * The problem is that users such as Astynax and Neotarf go around the encyclopedia claiming that the Arbitration Committee ruled on content. In fact, Neotarf explicitly claims this on the 1 January 2014 post at The Singpost: "The case asserted that Argentine history articles were being systematically skewed [...]".
 * In the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page, I remember very clearly that my arguments were in favor of maintaining the WP:NPOV and against relying solely on author John Lynch for such a controversial subject. But, please, let's not go back into that matter.
 * My request here is not against Neotarf as a user (I am not requesting a punishment), but rather about the "Black Legend" being spread around by users such as Neotarf and Astynax. I want to know if any further accusations made by these or other users should be taken directly to AN/I or if the Arbitration Committee would like to clarify matters (or make amendments) that can provide more light on how to resolve this matter.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I suppose that another part of the question here is the distinction between the "evidence phase" and the "final decision". Astynax below assures that what was placed in the "evidence phase" can be used in the Arbitration Committee's voice. I find this view strange, particularly as my understanding is that the "evidence phase" is where parties (involved and peripheral) could submit their position on the subject, whereas the "final decision" is what the Arbitration Committee ultimately had to say about the matter. Some kind of clarification is clearly needed either for me, for the others, or for everyone.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 07:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Questions: These are all my clarification questions. Salvio was kind enough to provide his response to them :
 * 1) Is the Arbitration Committee's voice in the "evidence phase" or in the "final decision"?
 * 2) Should "casting aspersions" problems, related to this case, be taken to AN/I or Arbitration Enforcement?
 * "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
 * I would like to know if the other arbitrators fully agree with Salvio, or if there might be a discrepancy of opinion?
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Astynax, according to the "final decision" presented by the Arbitration Committee, I was found to have engaged in "tendentious editing and battleground conduct". Nothing less, nothing more.
 * Your accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content" are aspersions. I am tired of your (and your friends') constant attacks.
 * Please consider this a final warning.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The diffs used as examples of my behavior problems, do not justify your accusations, Astynax.
 * I have understood these diffs as my errors, particularly my pestering of voters in move request discussions (as shown in the second and third diffs), and apologized for them in various prior occasions.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all I am asking is that you (and your friends) please stop casting aspersions about me. Simply drop the stick. But, no, that just doesn't happen. The insults simply continue. What's worse, I'm in a lose-lose situation. If I report Astynax at AN/I (at this point), it will only increase the drama to this repulsive soap opera that should have been cancelled many seasons ago: Hence, I believe that the only solutions here are: Yes, I know that this clarification request is unusual. However, I think the statements made by Astynax & The_ed17, along with my evidence from Neotarf, are good examples of the why the unusual explanation is necessary. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 06:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If Astynax gets blocked, that will add to the list of martyrs to this problem. The editor will cease to edit for a while, maybe "retire", and then miraculously return after a funeral procession (carried out to the tune of "Baby Come Back" ). In the meantime, the grudge will increase to levels only comparable with WrestleMania.
 * If Astynax doesn't get blocked, that will encourage the aspersions to continue and become even more vociferous than The Signpost. This may even spill into the real world, which would severely hurt my career.
 * 1) The Arbitration Committee needs to make a stern statement on the matter. Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong and the "evidence phase" can be considered as part of the Arbitration Committee's final ruling voice/statement. Either way, this needs to get formally cleared up.
 * 2) Regardless of the decision made here, my detractors (Astynax, Neotarf, The_ed17, etc.) really need to move on and take their roles in Wikipedia more professionally (again, please read WP:REAL). The mistakes I made have already been punished; no need exists for vigilante editing or continuing stabs on old wounds. If that's not enough to convince you, perhaps simply consider that all of you are wasting your time on someone you disregard in importance.

Per the recommendations of Salvio and ES&L, I request that my clarification request please be withdrawn. I apologize for the continuing drama, but you can follow the story at AN/I. Assuming my WrestleMania example to be correct, I call dibs on Hulk Hogan. Again, sorry everyone. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to ES&L, yes, I knew from the start that there would be no blocks placed here. I am not interested in seeing any of the aforementioned users (Neotarf, The_ed17, or Astynax) blocked. This is partially out of a personal desire to avoid further conflict, but also because I wanted to avoid the creation of any more martyrs.
 * I would have preferred for the arbitrators to make a stern statement that would either (A) stop the aspersions and/or (B) allow for swift AN/I reports and closures.
 * I would be pleasantly surprised if matters do get quickly resolved at AN/I. However, in all likelihood, this ship will not go down without flying flares, ringing its bells, and blasting its horns (and throwing everyone & everything overboard).
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Astynax
MarshalN20 is mistaken that reliable, mainstream sources were not produced linking Nacionalismos and its apologists to Fascism during the arbitration case during the Evidence phase. The Signpost article thus seems to be on solid footing, and there are certainly other mainstream historians that could be cited in support of equating Nacionalismo and quasi-historical Nacionalismos accounts with Fascism. MarshalN20 joined Cambalachero/MBelgrano in defending edits based upon those sources. I am unsure what motivated MarshalN20 to lodge yet another request regarding this case, what this complaint has to do with his block, or what he is asking be clarified. If he has a complaint against the behavior of Neotarf, who did not participate in the arbcom case, surely this is not the place to lodge it. &bull; Astynax talk 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to MarshalN20: You were sanctioned for specific behavior, which involved intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content. There is no requirement that such material be inserted into articles based upon demands for "consensus building". The case was accurately reported in the Signpost article, though you obviously still do not accept that you participated in such behavior or understand the reasoning behind your block. I personally find your charges of spreading a "Black Legend" to be a highly offensive and baseless breach of civility, but should you believe that I have been doing so, you were already very well-aware of where to report that sort of behavior, and that it is not here. So I am still left wondering what is the point of this request, even after your amendments? &bull; Astynax talk 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to MarshalN20: Yes, you were sanctioned for that behavior, which basis arose specifically from intransigently pushing fringe, PoV content. I am certain that you are familiar with tendentious editing for which you were blocked, and that it encompasses the PoV-pushing of fringe content behavior which was part of the complaint against you. Again, this is not the proper place to lodge complaints against me and others, nor to re-air your position or attempt to circumvent. I'll bow out now, as it seems clear that you haven't accepted the reasons behind your block. &bull; Astynax talk 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Neotarf
I’m not sure why I am being named as a party here. I have never edited in this topic area or with this group of editors.

The Signpost Arbitration Report has included the same basic synopsis of the Argentine History case since the April 1st, 2013 issue, over nine months ago. Marshal was not named in any of these reports. The only time this user was named in an Arbitration Report with regards to this case was in the June 26, 2013 report, when the case was closed and the findings passed unanimously by the committee were quoted verbatim.

Marshal has never expressed any concerns about the reports on the talk pages, or by contacting me via my talk page or by email. He did however post a comment here after he was mentioned in connection with one of his requests regarding his Latin American history topic ban. At that time I declined to expand on the report, as I don’t consider these requests to be very interesting to a general audience, plus it's a lot of work, but I invited him to add his reflections. He did not.

Marshal has also misquoted me: e.g. when he quotes this: "They were ganging up to bully him." the actual quote is "WHO CLAIMED they were ganging up to bully him." (emphasis mine)

No one has accused Marshal of being a “fascist” (small “f”). The reference to Fascism (capital “F”) refers to sources associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. My comments at WikiProject Editor Retention were to express surprise after an editor was sanctioned by AE after posting at yet another one of Marshal’s topic ban review requests.

Query: If Marshal is topic banned, how is he posting comments at the Signpost and at Clarification Requests?

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
This is ridiculous to be here: Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error. However, nobody on this board will block for it, and Marshal knows it. So Marshal, close this well-intentioned, but poorly thought-out filing (after all, you WERE told the right locale), and use diff's to the links as part of your proof. Someone is quite clearly trying to drive you away from specific articles and casting false aspersions. Editors are not permitted to put words in ArbCom's mouths that were not there to begin with in order to invalidate your edits ES  &#38;L  10:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * @ Please quote in your statement the actual words used that you are concerned about.  Roger Davies  talk 08:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes (February 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Case affected : 

Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Pigsonthewing and infoboxes

 List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * (initiator)
 * Andy

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request



Information about amendment request


 * "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes."

Statement by Gerda Arendt
As already stated while the case was open, this puts Andy in the position not being able to add infoboxes to articles which he creates. A proposal to change that, Include infoboxes in new articles which they create, was then supported by ColonelHenry, Johnbod, Crisco 1492, Montanabw, improved wording requested by Philosopher, Mackensen and SchroCat. The proposal was opposed by Giano and Folantin, and was discussed.

Today we saw one of Andy's articles as lead DYK on the Main page: Magistrate of Brussels. I ask to add a clause that ends the restriction on his newly created articles: he is in no conflict with any other user, responsible for the content of an article he creates, and is not in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia adding an infobox for a painting, a street or a military person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you know that I enjoyed amicable discussion and collaboration on an infobox template, infobox Bach composition, resulting in a good compromise (pictured), shown on more than 100 classical music articles (example), by Nikkimaria, Andy, RexxS and myself?
 * Assume good faith, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Mabbett
I wasn't aware of Gerda's plans to make this request, but I thank her for it and endorse it (I had intended to make such a request at a later date). I wish to include infoboxes in articles I create, and there appears to be no cogent reason why I should not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Penwhale
If the restriction was to be removed from articles he recently created (which should be classified both by (a) article age and (b) number of edits by other editors), then I would also recommend that he be allowed to defend his reasoning to include said infoboxes at the appropriate places. Without this, editors could unilaterally remove boxes from Andy's recently-created articles and he would not be able to do a thing about it. I doubt it will come up often, but I at this point don't see harm also granting him this capability. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I like your ideas, save for the first one - I would amend it so that if specific article(s) have/has few or no other contributors, he would be given a bit more leeway with the infoboxes in such article(s). Call it the someone's got to keep an eye on it clause. I also would support a revision count instead or in addition to the article age (since creation) for definition of such articles.- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
If the committee is going to allow an exemption for articles Andy has recently created, please could they define what they mean by "recently". Doing so would remove the potential for much argument that could very easily lead to more work at AE and/or another amendment/clarification request down the line. I also endorse Penwhales's comments about discussion.

As your starter for 10, how about:
 * Andy may add infoboxes to articles created in the past 3 calendar months where he is unambiguously the creator and/or only significant author.
 * He may participate in any discussion, started by any other user, about infoboxes on individual articles meeting the above criteria.
 * He may initiate a discussion about the undiscussed removal of an infobox from an article meeting the above criteria but he may not reinstate the infobox without consensus, except he may:
 * revert obvious vandalism that removed the infobox (e.g. page or section blanking)
 * revert or fix obvious error that unintentionally stopped an infobox from apearing. He may discuss an infobox with an editor to the extent required to understand their intent.
 * revert the removal of an infobox on one of these articles if the removing editor has not offered an explanation after 1 week and no other user has commented in support of the removal.
 * Any user apparently stalking Andy's edits or otherwise systematically removing infoboxes added by Andy may be blocked by an uninvolved adminstrator for up to a week (first offence) or up to a year (third and subsequent offences) following consensus at WP:AE. Andy may initiate and/or comment in any such AE discussion.

Hopefully something like that should be acceptable to all parties and leave no significant grey areas. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I plucked the time period out the air, but it seems a recent definition of "recent" to me for this context. I intend that the time period is a rolling one of three months from $current_day not three months from the date an ammendment is past.

if you want to accuse Andy of sockpuppetry you should make a formal presentation of the evidence at WP:SPI. If you don't, you should withdrawn the insinuations you've made here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An SPI case was submitted. It was closed without action by clerk Reaper Eternal who was "not convinced" by the behavioural evidence presented and concluded "There's no real evidence to support sock puppetry" The case has now been archived to Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing/Archive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree absolutely about the disservice WP:OWN does to the encyclopaedia. However, if you read the case pages you will see that last year's committee approved principles and findings of fact that endorsed WP:OWNership of articles by those opposed to infoboxes, despite repeated comments by myself and others (RexxS and Gerda Arendt included) on the talk pages about how bad this would be. So officially now any author can legitimately object to an infobox on "their" article on the grounds of "I don't like it". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nikkimaria
Under such conditions, and given that the subject has consistently regarded "authorial choice" in excluding a box from an article one creates as "ownership"....why is this request here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed, including the one with which Gerda opened this request, have infoboxes&mdash;most added by either editors who supported Andy during the case or a Birmingham public library IP, and then developed by Andy. Indeed, this pattern holds true also for a number of articles not created by Andy.
 * In an earlier clarification request, the committee concluded that "acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction...is not permitted". In the discussions that resulted in this remedy, a number of arbs stated that Andy "does need to take time away from infoboxes". Neither seems to have been heeded.
 * @WTT: I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see Andy support that statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
Since late September 2013 (i.e. just after the ArbCom sanctions passed), a Birmingham IP has taken a sudden interest in infoboxes. Funnily enough, this has tended to occur around the same time Andy Mabbett has contributed to many of the same articles.--Folantin (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is socking, meat puppetry or something else, but there are more than enough WP:DUCK grounds for suspicion here. According to Nikkimaria,several of these IPs have been behaving in the same way. All Birmingham educational addresses. According to his own Wikipedia user page, Andy Mabbett lives in Birmingham and works in education.

Examples: The only users to edit the Birmingham Union workhouse article are Pigsonthewing and an anonymous infobox-adding IP:. Almost exactly the same thing happens with Sir Richard Ranulph FitzHerbert, 9th Baronet : the only edit the IP makes is to add an infobox, while all other edits to the article (barring a minor fix) are by Andy Mabbett. On Denville Hall, the only edit an anonymous IP makes to the page is to add an infobox right among a bunch of edits by Pigsonthewing. An IP manages to produce a fully formatted infobox in its sixth ever edit to Wikipedia, again right in the middle of a bunch of Andy Mabbett's contributions to the same article.

This is well beyond coincidence. --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * More evidence collected here . I could request an SPI but I don't think it's necessary per the duck test. The behavioural evidence that these IPs and Pigsonthewing are connected goes well beyond reasonable doubt. --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I've now gone ahead and asked for an SPI per Arbitrator Beeblebrox's request. The evidence is here. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
It is exactly this sort of adversity by innuendo that make editors like Folantin so poisonous to the collaborative environment we should be striving to create on Wikipedia. There are 1 million people in Birmingham city and 2 million people in the surrounding urban area, including both Andy and myself. I live as close to the city centre as Andy does and have far more links with education than he does now, or ever had. Why not accuse me of being the IPs? A look at the geolocation for the IPs that Folantin lists shows that they are mainly school addresses. Here's the homepage for Birmingham Grid for Learning: http://www.bgfl.org/ - see for yourself that it's part of the National Grid for Learning (which connects schools to the internet) and you can quickly click through from the homepage to the directory of schools, http://services.bgfl.org/cfpages/schools/default.cfm where you'll find that Birmingham has hundreds of schools connected to BGfL. Is Folantin now claiming that Andy is getting into schools and using their computers to edit Wikipedia pages? I'm afraid that it's far more likely that there are many Wikipedia editors in Birmingham schools who may add infoboxes, considering the majority of articles on the English Wikipedia have one (at least 2.4 million out of 4.4 million). I suppose the next step will be Folantin blaming Andy for all of those as well? --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that I'd boldly add an infobox to the article using the template, only to be reverted with the edit summary "rv,fmt". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposals at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision merely show the lack of understanding by the Arbs of WP:STEWARDSHIP - that there are responsibilities associated with that concept. Although the Arbs seem capable of recognising when "a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership ..." they are completely blind to the qualification "...and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit." The ArbCom has given carte blanche to owners of articles to blindly revert good-faith edits, without even a pretence of explanation beyond "we say so". Until that behaviour is recognised and tackled, conflict will ensue and we'll lose good contributors until we're only left with the article owners. Yes, you can reduce "disruption" by banning one entire side of a content dispute, but taking sides in that manner will not be ultimately conducive to the development of a multimedia, online encyclopedia that anyone is supposed to be able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If your concern is with "preparing the ground for future discussions", then you ought to think through the consequences of your actions. You have created a situation where anybody opposed to infoboxes can remove an infobox without discussion and insult anyone who objects with impunity. Why would the infobox opposers want to change that situation? "Future discussions" will just weaken their grip on the articles they own. On the other hand, you have removed one - and are in the process of removing another - of the most prominent proponents of infoboxes from the issue. You've even threatened to remove me from discussions on infoboxes unless I stop complaining when I'm treated like a POS by the anti-infobox crowd. So who's left to "prepare the ground"? Are you going to do it? --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing that you only take that from my comment. You're going to find that ArbCom has collective cabinet responsibility for its decisions once they are made. The opportunity is there for you to persuade your colleagues of the folly of removing one entire side of a content dispute, but simply echoing Carcharoth's misguided, albeit good-faith, preoccupation with forcing unwilling/unable participants to solve a problem that half of them don't want to be solved won't do anything to improve the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You make the clear distinction between type (i) "specific" contributions and type (ii) "general" contributions. I already agreed with your categorisation - as you may remember from when I explained to you that discussion of metadata was often article-specific type (i), not always general type (ii), as you had assumed. To the point: are you telling me that you are opposing Motion 1 - which only modifies Andy's ability to make "specific" contributions - because it doesn't advance "general" contributions? I hope you'll forgive me for characterising that as cock-eyed logic. If you want to give Andy the ability to contribute to "general" discussions, then propose an amendment to the first part of that motion that excludes him from "discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes." - which of course includes "general" discussions on the issue.
 * As for "those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues", I don't recognise to whom you are referring. Kleinzach? Smerus? Nikki? You gave them everything they wanted in the original decision - why would they need any further discussion? The only other two parties were Andy and Gerda, and you've banned then from the discussions. Nobody would find it surprising that no progress has been made on remedy 6 "Community discussion recommended". --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
 Please see also Finding on Ownership and stewardship. NE Ent 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care much about infoboxes one way on the other. Carly Foulkes has one cause the other model articles did, Charley Morgan doesn't.
 * I've prior contact / interaction with Gerda / Nikkimaria /POTW : all are clearly positive contributors to the encylopedia; this case made me sad more than anything else.
 * It says here; I've got 2000 WP:ANI edits, 1000 WP:WQA, 700 WP:AN and around 250 WP:AC (group). (I was an editor, of sorts, for a couple years before a watchlist notice requesters WQA volunteers led to WP:DR participation.) Since I read more than I comment on, the numbers probably underestimate the number of conflicts observed.
 * One of the most common threads I see underlying conflict is the "ownership" concept. It's toxic and the antithesis of Wikipedia should be. You've all seen these hundreds or thousands of times, but I'm going to repeat it: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone
 * Although Arbcom is not GovCom, decisions made are influential in community discussion and thinking.
 * As much as I'd like Andy to be able to add infoboxes -- especially if it could do so without annoying Nikkimaria -- the encyclopedia as a whole is more important to me, and therefore I urge ya'll not to pass any remedies based on nebulous "ownership" criteria. In the long run, as it opens the door for more "that's mine" spats, it is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
 * Alternative modifications, such as allowing allowing single insertions, with 0rr if another editor removes the box, and perhaps a limit of a single talk page argument for the addition of the box, would prevent the benefit of allowing Andy to add boxes to articles he provides the initial writing off without ensconcing the "ownership" concept in the decision. NE Ent 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the kerfluffle is. All articles should have infoboxes. Really. They're a quick, immediately visible summary of the subject. We don't get to determine whether it has one or not based on who created it, or has the most edits - that would be WP:OWN. This is one thing NOT WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT ES  &#38;L  09:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
I've stayed out of this until now, but I must strenuously object to the proposal below to tighten Gerda's restrictions. She came here in good faith to ask that Andy be allowed the same level of activity that she currently enjoys, and now ArbCom wants to slap her down for simply asking? What an absurd result this is! This is not an "obsession," onthe part of Gerda, it is a legitimate question being raised. Many of us have a "STF?" reaction to the anti-infobox "obsession" of a few very strongly-opposed editors of classical music articles. It was their very harsh and bullying manner that led to the case that boomeranged and created this whole mess. Given that well over half of all wikipedia articles - and undoubtably, an even higher percentage of those that are B-Class and higher - currently include an infobox, this idea to sanction Gerda for just asking a restriction on another user to be softened is one of the most ill-conceived notions I've seen! Within many projects the infobox is standard (with assorted "drahmahz" over content, but not existence). I urge the members below to reconsider their actions. Montanabw (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@ESL, RexxS, NE Ent, I agree 100%. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) @ Worm That Turned, I have to admit shock that you have even proposed this draconian sanction. Until this, I have had considerable respect for you, but I am dumbfounded that you think that running off a top notch contributor from an area of interest will solve the infobox wars. Montanabw (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Chedzilla (aka User:Ched)

 * 1) I'm all for loosening the restrictions to allow Andy to add boxes to articles he creates (and I would even support such to include articles he significantly expands - perhaps we can revisit this request in the near future if things go well).
 * 2) Motion 2 .. HUH?  WTF?  During the case it was suggested that a wider discussion on this topic should be held - I started one, and was promptly told 'NOT NOW' (paraphrased).  Has Gerda violated the "2 comment rule" (or any other rule) somewhere?  Can someone link to it please?
 * 3) At the conclusion of a long case (which at times begged the question of how much the committee was actually listening and reading) Gerda was told: They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.  She does so and you slap her with a more restrictive sanction?  This makes absolutely NO sense to me.  Simply amazing.
 * Disclaimer: I have not been very active on wiki - and certainly not around any more of the dreaded "infobox" issues; so if I have missed a significant violation of rules, please feel free to link me to it and I will strike the parts of my statement which are shown to be in error.
 * I'm almost getting the impression that the committee wants the community to talk this out, but they don't want those who are familiar with the topic to be involved if they are "pro" infobox, they don't want to be asked for any input, or know anything about any discussions. Is there some sort of plausible deniability clause in your job description?  —   Ched ZILLA 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

 * Re ownership – That's unfortunately part and parcel of the way things work around here. In the absence on a community decision one way or another on a matter, things are usually up for grabs by local warlords. Here, we have a pitch battle, Classical Music Warlords versus the Metadata Warlords. The factions will put up stiff fights at policy pages where necessary, and often manage to block consensus from forming. And when a dispute comes to a head, Arbcom usually restricts/blocks/bans a number of editors from each side of the trench but otherwise make no pronunciation on the disputed territory, leaving untouched the void to be filled. It's in the system, so how do you propose to change that? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite Birmingham being a big place and many work in education, I would say that the sudden "coincidental" appearance of IP editors from Brum, doing things apparently in support of infoboxes, would well warrant investigation. The trenches are too deep to dismiss existence of possible socking. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: Whilst I have no personal preference for infoboxes one way or another (many of my article creations have them and many do not), I feel that some topics do lend themselves better to being summarised in infoboxes. However, there is a risk of disruption if we allow the amendment without excluding the mass creation of stub boilerplated articles that all contain infoboxes. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Before proceeding further, we should wait for a response from Andy (Pigsonthewing) as to whether he wants this amendment request to be made or not, and if he does, he should then make a statement and Gerda should step back and let matters proceed from there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that Andy has 'taken over' this request that was initially made by Gerda, my inclination would be to deny the amendment request. The reason is that both this proposed amendment, and the remedy that was passed for Gerda, are taking the wrong approach. Whether an article does or does not have an infobox should not depend on the initial author or creator. It is the article topic and content that should determine whether it has an infobox (well-thought out infoboxes are, by design, intended to be applied to an easily definable and finite series of articles - as opposed to an overly broad and open-ended category). If it is an article that fits within a defined series (e.g. planets, chemical elements, and so on), then there should be no problem. If it is a disputed area (e.g. people - not all articles on people are amenable to being presented in infobox form) then there should be a discussion. If there is any doubt, leave it off and/or raise the matter on the talk page for discussion. On a wider point, what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for a discussion to help address ways to include the data contained in infoboxes in ways that do not force articles to have infoboxes, and to address the wider question of why when 'boxes' in general were first created, infoboxes gravitated to the top right-hand corner, and other boxes (e.g. navboxes and succession boxes) gravitated to the bottom of articles (series boxes ended up in-between). If categories were displayed at the top of articles, they would get argued over a lot more. It is the location of infoboxes in 'prime territory' right up front that causes much of the dissension IMO. Find some way of resolving that tension and people might argue less over them. Also tackle the issue of 'narrow' vs 'broad' infoboxes. But all these issues can only be addressed if the wider community actually has those discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RexxS, the distinction that should be drawn here is between: (i) edits, actions and discussions specific to an article or narrow class of articles, or a single infobox (call this 'specific' discussion - your earlier clarification request was a good example of that); and (ii) over-arching general discussion of the function of infoboxes and how to approach discussion of them and how to allow flexibility in their use and how to encourage best practice and manage disagreements (call this 'general' discussion - it would be limited to discussion and guideline pages set up for the purpose). The case specifically tried to make this distinction, but I don't think it sunk in. What I would propose is that no-one would be banned from type (ii) discussion (the general sort, trying to find an overall approach to infoboxes that works better than the current impasse), but the current topic bans would be converted to only apply to type (i) discussions. The current motions don't achieve this, which is why I am opposing them. My hope had been that those able to calmly and dispassionately discuss the issues would by now have made some progress on a document (intended for community discussion) that lays out the relevant arguments and available options. The ideal outcome would be a document that provides guidance on how to discuss infoboxes and diplomatically handle the disagreements that sometimes arise. Has any progress been made on that? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth - this should be coming from Andy, not you Gerda. Worm TT( talk ) 11:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support Andy being allowed to add infoboxes to articles he has created, though as Beeblebrox suggests, if others remove it, he will be topic banned from the subsequent discussion.
 * , allowing Andy to add infoboxes to articles he creates and only those articles does give a clear sign that authorship has weight. I have seen no evidence that Andy is asking other users to put infoboxes on the articles he creates, nor that he has not heeded the topic ban in the short period since the case. Worm TT( talk ) 07:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that Andy has spoken up about this I think I would support allowing such an amendment, provided that it is made clear that this applies only to articles Andy has recently created. If others come along later and object to or remove said infobox, the TBAN would still apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thrydulff is quite right, either proffer your evidence at WP:SPI or do not make such accusations. "Put up or shut up" is pretty much standard procedure for accusations of socking, which can be extremely damaging to a user even if they have not actually done it. Please either show us the SPI case page with relevant evidence or strike your remarks. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fairly easy to word an amendment so as to avoid the any wiki-lawyering about the definition of "recent". Something along the lines of "Pigsonthewing is permitted to add infoboxes to articles to which he is unambiguously the initial creator, provided that he does so with his first edit when initially creating the article, and at no time afterwards.   If any other user should make any edit whatsoever related to that infobox the topic ban still applies.  This exemption is valid only for articles created after this amendment has passed. If any user should appear to be using this exemption to harass Pigsonthewing by repeatedly removing infoboxes he has placed in articles, Pigsonthewing is instructed to email the arbitration committee rather than commenting on-wiki. If the matter appears to have merit it will be referred to Arbitration enforcement for review. If Pigsonthewing is found to have violated these conditions the exemption will be rescinded and the full topic ban considered still in force." That draws pretty clear lines around what the exemption  is and what Andy's means of recourse is should someone decide to exploit it to harass. If he wants an infobox in an article he creates it has to be there from the get go. This can be done easily enough through drafting elsewhere and copying it when ready to go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this amendment as applied to articles of which Andy Mabbett is clearly and unambiguously the creator. If there is room for doubt (e.g. the situation that arose last fall with an article that had been drafted in AfC space and that Andy published into mainspace), steer clear or ask first. I will add that although Gerda Arendt's raising an infobox-related issue may work out okay in this instance, in general she would be very well served to take the strong advice that she was given here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this request should be denied. In the past, when dealing with infoboxes, Andy's approach has often been problematic and, for that, he had to be removed from the playing field. I don't think it's wise to allow him back now, even in part and, on top of that, since, as Nikkimaria mentions, 80% of the articles created by Andy since the case closed have infoboxes, I also see no reason to relax the restriction, which might lead to wikilawyering and endless AE threads (examples may include: he created the article three months and a day ago, he was not the only significant author and so on). In my opinion, when a sanction becomes necessary, it's best for it to be plain, simple and clear. A sanction, in short, that does not allow for many exceptions of grey areas, which in this case, is a restriction preventing Andy from making any edits concerning infoboxes tout court. I'd also like to add that Gerda would do well to choose to stay away from this topic for a bit, because her behaviour since the case has closed has done nothing but convince me that the sanction we imposed on her should be changed to match Andy's. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on this mirror Salvio's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Salvio's exposition,  Roger Davies  talk 00:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My heart tells me "per NYB". My head tells me "per Salvio". The actual effective difference between the two is small enough that I'll go with my heart this time.  I suggest Andy be allowed to add infoboxes to articles he unambiguously has "created", but if that is opposed for any reason then the topic ban continues to apply. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone on the project, pro-, con-, or indifferent, care one to two orders of magnitude less about infoboxes than they do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Someday this dispute will drag on to the point that we wind up having the mainspace article English Wikipedia infobox controversy. On the talkpage, someone will open a thread about whether that article should have an infobox or not..... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. T. Canens (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Floq in this case. I don't think it's about authorship having "weight" so much as that Andy can't cause disruption by adding an infobox to an article he just minted. If any non-bot edits have been made to the article by anyone but Andy, anyone has objected to an infobox in the article, or anyone has removed it, Andy would be barred from placing or reinstating an infobox and from discussing the matter. (And may NYBrad's proposed scenario never come to occur.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * re and are in the process of removing another: no, the three people you pinged all opposed motion two, a motion which would have removed from the discussion entirely. L Faraone  20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Motion 1 (Andy Mabbett)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 1.1 is modified with immediate effect to the following text: to be enacted on the passing of this motion.
 * Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes. He may include infoboxes in new articles which he creates.


 * Support
 * Proposed, copyedits welcome. Whether you want to look at this from a "he can't cause disruption whilst he's creating articles" perspective or from an authorship having "weight" point of view, Andy should be able include an infobox as part of the article creation. If another user removes the infobox, Andy would remain banned from re-adding it. Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With a strong understanding that this privilege should be used conservatively and only when it will not cause contention or disruption, else it will be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With caveats per WTT and Seraphimeblade. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope Andy, and his detractors, will take this as no more and no less than it is and that both the committee and the broader community will not need to deal with more infobox related drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to AGF here, but I still have concerns about drama down the road. I agree with NYB it will likely not be problematic, and in that spirit I'll support it (with the thought that if it creates a drain on resources, we quickly rescind). NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I'm opposing. We spend too much time attempting to accommodate requests that will in all likelihood result in drains on community resources and the exhaustion of community patience.  Roger Davies  talk 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RD and Carcharoth articulate my thoughts here well. While I agree with NYB's thoughts that this motion would probably not result in disruption, past experience shows that these participants have generated a large drain on community resources in this matter. This limited modification does not appear to serve a clear project benefit, nor does the restriction seem to be an impediment in practice for the inclusion infoboxes as others have noted. L Faraone  03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I still largely agree with the above, on further thought Carcharoth's arguments are very strong to me on the matter. Also Ohconfucius is apt when he points out how it could be disruptive. NativeForeigner Talk 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Gerda Arendt)


For reference, the relevant remedy relating to is:

Proposed:

In the Infoboxes case, remedy 3.2 is vacated with immediate effect and replaced with the following remedy: to be enacted on the passing of this motion.
 * Gerda Arendt is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of infoboxes, both at specific articles and in wider discussions. She may include infoboxes in new articles which she creates.


 * Support
 * Proposed, copyedits welcome. As much as I feel Gerda is one of the most positive personalities on the encyclopedia, infoboxes seem to be her blind spot. Having watched her behaviour with respect to infoboxes since the close of the case, I feel it has turned into rather a pre-occupation for her and I believe that restricting her from all discussions on infoboxes would be the best solution. Worm TT( talk ) 11:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose, detailed explanation there. Worm TT( talk ) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Per my earlier comments. And I repeat: what those who participated in the infobox case should be doing is preparing the ground for future discussions. This fiddling with and modifying the current editor-specific remedies does nothing at all to aid resolution of the wider issues. It would be better to either lift all restrictions, or impose blanket bans that don't depend on who created an article - it really should not matter who created an article. Whether an article should have an infobox or not should depend on the article not the author of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  03:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing but don't see sufficient cause for this at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth. And also, I would urge Gerda to not become too embattled over the issue. She means well but this whole area is so tangled in drama further actions only tend to stoke the fire. NativeForeigner Talk 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm moving to oppose (effectively withdrawing this motion). There's a number of reasons for this, I've been mulling it over since this statement by Gerda that 2014 was about new beginnings. It does imply that she is trying to move on. I would have switched then, but for the fact that she raised this very amendment request in 2014. Having read through some of her recent editting, I do agree that her actions in 2014 have been less focussed on the infobox case. On top of that, Floquenbeam's comments do ring true, this request is more "for her own good" than preventing active disruption. Worm TT( talk ) 10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * per below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments by arbitrators
 * If the outcome of this didn't look obvious, I'd say (and have said before) that I think this would be a really good idea for Gerda to consider on her own. I think Risker and NYB have said something similar. As a recommendation (and I think Gerda respects my opinion even when she disagrees), I'm convinced it would make her happier to let it go on her own.  I doubt it will make her happier to be forced to let it go, and I'm not convinced there's any real problem this is solving.  I honestly don't believe she's actually disrupting things, and in the absence of disruption, it's not really our place to tell her how to live her life. If I didn't consider Gerda a friend, and thus feel obliged to abstain, I'd oppose, but I do ask those supporting to make sure they believe they're actually preventing significant disruption, and not just forcing her to take their "advice". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Infoboxes (February 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  RexxS (talk) at 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 am dismayed at finding myself asking once again for clarification of the decision made last September in the Infoboxes case. I am again confronted by Dr. Blofeld taking what I believe to be an utterly inappropriate interpretation of one of your decisions: I believe this to be entirely inaccurate as I cannot see that the Arbitrators would advance a policy of restricting content decisions to just those editors who self-identify as "the article writers". For comparison, the text of the finding of fact is: It is this finding of fact that I wish to see clarified, precisely to identify who were intended by the wording "the editors at each individual article".
 * In, he states It's just everytime we have an article on the main page this "why doesn't it have an infobox" argument breaks out, when all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide and they're not compulsory.
 * The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Several editors had questioned on the Talk:Hattie Jacques page the absence of an infobox, and Dr. Blofeld is now using his interpretation of your decision to deny new editors any say in the decision concerning infoboxes. His comment was made immediately after that of, who will now be left with the impression that his views cannot carry any weight on that talk page. I have and make that clear, but he has declined to do so and insists that you would acknowledge his interpretation. Consequently I wish to settle this issue completely by an unambiguous statement from ArbCom on who may take part in a decision to add an infobox to an article. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: I do not see how the words "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide" are capable of any misinterpretation. The context is clear: followed a few minutes after  who suggested that "... mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience." You were involved in a back-and-forth with that editor and attempted to shut down the discussion by telling him that "it's up to the article writers to decide". All your wriggling here bears no resemblance to what you wrote on that talk page. Anyone can . I have asked you to correct yourself and your response, once more, is to descend to invective. I should not have to put up with  when I've done no more than civilly raised an issue with you, and sought the clarification that we all should be entitled to.
 * As for the question of TFA, I've had an article that I took through FA on the main page and I sympathise with the stress of stewardship while it is there. But that is not sufficient to overturn the principle of encouraging readers to edit; and if numerous editors come to the talk page to ask about an infobox, then it ought to be a hint to you that there is some opinion in favour of an infobox and you need to recognise it and work with those editors to seek a broader consensus, rather than telling them that ArbCom has gifted the decision to your small group. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it your contention that only those who have edited an article should be allowed to comment on the talkpage? If not, what's your point? I do have some expertise in templates and I wrote a module to help import Wikidata into infoboxes. Should that be a disqualification from correcting misinformation on technical aspects? When you attempted to get another editor sanctioned by falsely claiming that they had caused another editor to stop editing, you should have expected to be called a liar. Tell me, just what have I done to deserve Blofeld calling me a "troublemaker"? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: That's your usual hyperbole. Unlike you, I am an editor in good standing with a clean block log. I have brought exactly two matters to ArbCom in my six years editing here. Both have centred on you because of your behaviour. Need I remind everyone that the previous concern occurred because you refused to engage in debate at the talk page and made : Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else? You got away with that by blubbing to me that you didn't want to be blocked. I stepped back from that request as a gesture of goodwill to you and this is how you respond. On this occasion you have falsely stated that ArbCom has "decided it's up to the article writers to decide" on infoboxes. I challenged your assertion on your talk page but you chose to defend your indefensible statement. I have received further insults from you on that same page for taking the time to inform you that I was seeking clarification. You have had plenty of time to correct your blatant falsehood on Talk:Hattie Jacques, but have chosen not to. We are here for a second time because of your actions and solely because of them. You need to learn that when you screw up, you stop blaming everyone else and fix the problem you've caused yourself. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: When was the last time that an editor uninvolved with the infobox debates turned up at a TFA and suggested that the infobox be removed? It never happens. It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something. Your proposal goes against the basic principles of wiki-editing which depends on discussion and consensus among as many contributors as possible. On the very day that an article gets its maximum exposure to other editors, you want to shut down discussion on the talk page? You'll have my opposition to that elitist idea for as long as I'm able to edit. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cassianto: I like you too, and I've been an admirer of your prolific content work ever since we bumped into one another. It saddens me that you think I've tried to force an infobox onto Hattie Jacques. I hope that if you re-read my contributions on the talk page, you'll see that my aim throughout has been to encourage debate of the issue, because other quite independent editors had raised it. Those editors deserve to have an equal opportunity to express their views; and they deserve to have a chance to understand the issues as they apply to that article. That's why it's so important that Blofeld is not allowed to shut down debate by falsely claiming that ArbCom has given a small group the sole right to decide whether there's an infobox or not - speaking as if he were one of the principal authors of the article (he's not). I'm sorry that you may find it tiresome to debate the issue of whether an infobox is appropriate or not for an article that you have substantially written, but that debate is healthy as it involves more people in the article. Isn't it better to give some respect to those who are interested enough to ask - whether they be experienced editors like Giant Snowman, or newcomers like Simonfreeman or MrDannyDoodah or even IPs? We build articles and our editing community by encouraging debate, not shutting it down. At the heart of it, that's what's at stake here, and ArbCom needs to defend that, not give silent approval to those who want to ring-fence articles to the detriment of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld: Of course you're shutting down discussion. It's plain for anyone to see who clicks on the revision of that you had no interest in discussing the points that MrDannyDoodah raises - you had already mocked his "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete" with your "one of the funniest statements I've read for quite some time on here"; and Danny's "it's a mistake to think that every user wants to read, or even skim, the full article, however much we would like them to ... perhaps with more scholarly subjects not using infoboxes, as presumably their target audience wouldn't need them, whilst mainstream subjects, such as biographies of entertainers, use them to meet the needs of a wider audience" drew your response of "all 10 arbitrators have decided it's up to the article writers to decide". Either you're being disingenuous or you really can't see how offensive it is to other good-faith editors to dismiss their views so thoughtlessly, particularly when you arrogantly claim the authority of ArbCom to tell others they don't get a say. And let's get this clear: are you "an editor in good standing with a clean block log"? Answer: No. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: So you think the editors who take articles to FA are paramount in making any decisions for the article. When you use words like "hassle" and "defend", you're already in a battlefield mentality and completely ignoring the possibility that other editors' opinions are worth considering. You're really advocating that Giant Snowman, Simonfreeman and MrDannyDoodah would be liable for sanctions if they asked why the article didn't have an infobox near TFA day. Are you going to tell all of them that they can't raise the issues precisely because some principal authors are saying "we've decided not to have one"? Ok, you want a Wikipedia hierarchy where some of the editors who write the best content are top of the pile and those below who gnome or add references or sort the technical issues out are second-class contributors. At least you're honest about your position and the rest of us know where we stand. --RexxS (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bencherlite: As you ask, I don't think that's an inappropriate comment and I am dismayed that you do. MrDannyDoodah is entitled to his opinion (for that is what it is) and whether I agree with it or not, I'll defend his ability to express that opinion. What a dull world you would have us live in where everybody's opinion had to be identical and differing views had to be repressed. If there's a problem with those you call "TFA authors" feeling obliged "to justify or defend their position", then a better solution would be to change the system where a small group of editors feel their own position is threatened whenever somebody suggests something different from the decisions they have made for the article. At some point that risks tipping over into ownership. Lasting solutions on Wikipedia work by involving more people, not less. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another member of ArbCom taking sides on content disputes. The decision on this case was made last September and that's over five months ago. I'm sure you'd like it all to go away for another six months, but ArbCom failed to address the issues last time and of course those issues still exist. I made it clear in the case that it was impossible for anyone to even raise the question of infoboxes on some articles without being patronised, insulted or both. Yet ArbCom did nothing about that. Since then we have had more of the same: completely uninvolved editors have asked a question in good faith and been dismissed or fed a load of cock-and-bull stories about the owners of a featured article having the only say on decisions like that. And now we have Bencherlite suggesting that we enshrine a principle of first and second class editors, by trying to remove the ability of other editors to raise issues at the very time that an article has its maximum exposure to those editors. It's disgraceful elitism and has no place on our encyclopedia. You "smile" on such proposals; I'd spit on them. It's about time Arbitrators worked out what the principles are that this project is based on - they start with "anyone can edit" and you need a bloody good reason to move away from that. Such good reasons don't include some editors being fed up with answering reasonable questions. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are saying that ArbCom is unable or unwilling to make clear what it intended by the phrase "through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" when that is the verbatim text of an ArbCom Finding of Fact, and are suggesting that I seek from the community clarification of an ArbCom finding. Well, it's an interesting precedent to set and I'm astonished that you're comfortable with that course. It does however cast some light on the pure folly of basing an ArbCom decision on a Finding of Fact that even ArbCom doesn't understand. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
Rexx has once again misinterpreted me and is looking for little more than support and to try to prove me wrong by bringing this here and wasting your time. I'm not mistaken in my interpretation, I believe the arbitrators have stated that consensus is to be reached by anybody interested in the article who may turn up at the talk page and want to discuss infoboxes, not just among those who've written the article. My message on the talk page about article writers deciding was how he mistook what I meant I think. Potentially several hundred people could comment on having an infobox issue to come to a true consensus, but my point in saying what I said was that in practice the decision to use an infobox really is typically and generally decided by discussion and consensus between a small group people who have written the article in question provided that nobody objects to it and I'm sure the arbitrators here would acknowledge this. However, should anybody turn up and make an issue of an infobox then I believe what was agreed here is that the editors who made the original agreement not to use an infobox must be open to new input and strive to gain a new consensus. It isn't practical to request dozens or even hundreds of editors to comment on one infobox in every article. The three of us as normal came to the decision not to use an infobox in Hattie Jacques, that was a consensus, just not wider consensus which seems is now needed. But this process every time one of our articles hits TFA has become disruptive and disrespectful to editors who bother to promote articles and have to deal with controversy over them. It's reached the point that we're being put off wanting to promote articles to FA and dreading the day a article hits the main page because it's inevitable that we'll again have to argue over them for hours. That's not right.

If anything I would ask the arb to look into a new clause which prevents editors discussing infobox issues while the article is on the main page and to encourage editors to try to come to a consensus afterwards if people are still concerned about the issue. I approached User talk:Floquenbeam to ask whether this was practical or not. Above all, arbitrators you decided that infoboxes are not compulsory, but in practice the way discussions end up, they end up eventually being forced and passed off as if they are indeed essential. I think this needs a revision and reassessment as, consensus or no consensus, they're treated as compulsory by editors who turn up on the talk pages in practice. The problem we're getting is that articles which wouldn't normally attract much attention over infoboxes are becoming war grounds for infobox disputes purely because editors have spotted them on the main page and this is immediately going to counteract any original consensus agreed on by the article writers which would have remained intact if the article wasn't featured and open to the scrutiny of thousands of people on the main page. Unless this case here can progress into something really constructive in terms of how to nip TFA infobox disputes in the bud then I'm afraid Rexx is wasting all of your time asking you to simply clarify as I know that generally you mean all editors have a right to discuss infoboxes, not just article writers, and he's simply misunderstood what I was getting at and has once again jumped the gun in running here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rexx. You keep running and whining to arb everytime anybody disagrees with you. That's troublesome. This is the second time you've done this with me and again you've misunderstood the situation and are wasting the arbitrators valuable time. If you're not willing to engage in active discussion with other editors, don't comment. You misquoted me here and mistook it as an argument for why an infobox shouldn't be included rather than a general statement which stated that infoboxes are not compulsory and that the arb have stated that it is up to the article writers to decide by consensus. What I meant by that as explained above is article writers and anybody else who shows an interest in infoboxes in articles. I have a point though that if most of these articles weren't TFAs, the attention they've likely to attract over infoboxes is likely to be low. So I'm arguing that articles without infoboxes are becoming breeding grounds for disputes when they're featured on the main page and this has to stop as it's a drain on the editors involved. You're unlikely to get a true consensus on the day of the FA and it comes across as forcing editors to add an infobox just to avoid disputes. The fact that you repeatedly come to arb to back you up I think is troublesome and causes unnecessary heartache and I dare say that eventually the arbitrators are going to get fed up with you and ban you from infobox discussions. I personally would accept a ban on myself from infobox disputes if you're also banned from them and running here during one, and that the arb pass something which will advise against infobox disputes during a TFA. Frankly I don't care that much about infoboxes, it just concerns me that we keep going through the same process every time one of our articles hits the main page and I hate to see our time being wasted which is why I comment.♦  Dr. Blofeld  11:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexx So if I screwed up, why is it you who is requesting arb to waste their time clarifying everything? You'd simply accept I was so obviously wrong (with what you thought I was trying to say) and move on wouldn't you? Your statement contradicts why you decided to come here. If it was I who screwed up why would you need to come here? You're the one I'm afraid who has taken what I said a little too literally and seriously. It isn't right to bring this here. I'm following the advice of Beeb and Vic on this and am walking away from this as I don't think it's worth my time. If anybody here would like me to respond to a question ping me and I'll respectfully respond, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanbw The thing is I haven't overreacted or responded madly arguing against "nefarious infobox pushers". I simply quietly said that the arb decided that infoboxes are not compulsory and are to be decided upon by the people who write the articles as they're writing it. Rexx misinterpreted what I said and thought it necessary to come running here which I see an unnecessary and troublesome. If he'd simply accepted my argument and quietly thought "you're wrong" instead of causing a big song and dance about asking me to correct myself and coming here things would still be amicable. Even if he has the best of intentions the frequent infobox discussion everytime an article hits TFA does become wearisome for the contributors, and its time something was resolved to stop it happening every week or two.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanbw You're right about that and it's what I've said above. In principle it is up to anybody to decide. But take your New Forest pony for instance. I'd imagine that it was your choice and anybody else who contributed to the article to use an infobox based on an understanding of what is typically used for such article and your preference to include one. The notion that the wider community are to decide the infobox issue on each and every article like this really isn't what happens in practice. If I, Schrod, Cass, Tim etc came along on the day of the TFA and started kicking up a fuss that the infobox looks ugly and arguing that it degrades the article as the article writer you'd surely stand your ground and object and argue that there was a consensus between you and whoever else wrote it to include one. You'd be miffed wouldn't you that editors who have absolutely nothing to do with the horses project snicking their nose in and trying to force a "new consensus" and try to prove that more people don't want the infobox than do. You'd surely be even more astounded if you found yourself swiftly in front of the arb over it wouldn't you? I personally have no problems with the infobox of course and don't think that, but I would never dream of coming along on your TFA and causing a fuss over it, even if I detested it. It is disrespectful to the editors who've bothered to write the article and their decision to use/not use an infobox. Obviously technically anybody can comment, but I do think people should be less forceful in their approach and at least be more accepting of what the people who've bothered to write the article and promote it to FA feel on the matter. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexx, you keep saying that I "shut down the debate" but I did no such thing. I have no authority to "close" a debate and it wasn't as if what I said came anywhere near resembling it. I simply quietly said that the arb made the decision that infoboxes are not compulsory above all. I didn't say "thou must not ever inquire about the adding of an infobox, never mention it again, this conversation is final" sort of thing did I? That's why I found your demands on my talk page so preposterous. Even if you disagree with what I said in the exact wording, simply ignore it and continue to argue your point. As for me not being an editor in good standing, I'm sure even the people who are on good terms with you are shaking their heads at that one too. You're digging a hole for yourself and I can see you continuing to worry about infoboxes in the future to the point you're going to end up being banned from discussing them. I'm very disappointed in your overreaction over this, you seemed a thoroughly decent and reasonable fella in emails a while back. You've got to take a look at how you yourself reacted. If you'd simply said on the talk page "the arb didn't mean just the article writers and you know that, we have a right to discuss them" I'd not have battered an eyelid and things would still be amicable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Victoriaearle
I think the committee should ignore this request, otherwise this situation will go on and on. RexxS comments frequently about infoboxes, as shown in the following very few and selective diffs, none of which come from articles RexxS has edited to my knowledge (I could be wrong!): March 2013, March 2013, May 2013, August 2013,  December 2013. Furthermore, in terms of not having to "put up with being called a "troublemaker"" - being called a liar wasn't much fun either,. In my view, everyone who posted to any of the case pages (myself included), should take a long step back and ignore infoboxes for at least six months. There are plenty of other things to do here. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from NE Ent
Obviously, there's no need for clarification as the committee already cited current policy Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and does not make policy, so any new policy for mainpage / FA infoboxes should come from the community -- as requested by the committee in their findings Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. NE Ent 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article. NE Ent 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
Another "clarification"? And on something that's not really an issue? This continuance of the infobox thing isn't helping anyone, and I can only support, cheer and echo Victoria's good advice above. I'm now so sick and tired of the infobox nonsense that, with apologies to, I'm not going to put any further articles up for TFA, as they end up being involved in the same old endlessly dreary arguments about the damned boxes: mostly about the general concept of boxes (the one-size-fits-all mantra), rather than whether a specific individual article needs a box. Sadly people seem to be unwilling to make the distinction between the general and the specific, and between the policy-led approach against the "I like them, so we need one" approach. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thankfully the site-wide consensus, as expressed by the MoS, differs from your personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw, There was no "snark" intended, and I'm sorry if you read it as such. I will correct a few errors you may seem to be labouring under, but firstly, could you please drop the overly-emotive language and try and assume at least some good faith? Calling editors whose opinion you disagree with is unlikely to help matters, and neither is describing someone's actions as, so perhaps we could deal with the issues, rather than drop into name calling? As to the substance of your comments. — SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  As my point related to the MoS, I'm not sure why you think the MoS is not a reflection of the site-wide consensus of all editors? (rather than just "bullies")
 * 2) I suggest you try reversing it too, just to see the opposing point of view. I've seen an editor accused of vandalism for the good faith removal of an IB that was inserted against a long-standing consensus: the conniption fits are happily shared around all-comers here.
 * 3) Why? The MoS is inherently flexible on the point of use ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article"), and reflects the fact that one-size-does-not-fit-all. Like the majority of people who are flexible in relation to IBs, I that sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be essential. And sometimes they are an abomination. Our policy has flexibility in the approach, which is where the problems can arise—and it's not just about the design and content.

Statement by Montanabw
OK, after noting for the record that I have had positive interactions with both RexxS and Blofeld, you are both good editors, and I really wish the two of you would just sit down, have a beer, and bury this hatchet, my thoughts: We're here again because are still anti-AGF behavior going on. If people would just live and let live, the guideline that the people who actually care about INDIVIDUAL articles (or, for that matter, individual SUBJECTS, such as opera or even TFAs) could decide by consensus would work. But, "teh dreaded infoboxen" issue is turning into a damn witchhunt. One person in good faith adds an infobox, another person throws a conniption fit about it and begins to accuse the pro-infoboxer of all sorts of nefarious motives. I have long held the view that any article that is part of a project that has gone to the trouble of creating an infobox really should consider using them as a default for consistency within the subject and the conveyance of needed data available at a glance; back in the Stone Age, my old set of World Book Encyclopedias had a standardized summary format box (predecessor to "teh infoboxen") in most of the major biographies or geography or science articles, and wiki is, at root, an encyclopedia. This issue is (in my view) mostly a graphic design element (though I get the metadata argument and think metadata is useful, though I know squat about programming it to happen), just like the wikipedia logo that's on every page on wiki. Not everyone is going to like every element, but the debate SHOULD be about design and content, not whether infoboxes exist. That train left a long time ago -- well over half of all wikipedia articles have infoboxes, an overwhelming majority in the sciences, and especially FA and GA-class articles. These dramas SHOULD be about what goes into an infobox, how the layout looks, etc., not whether they are included. Let's just ratchet down this Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet behavior. Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Schrocat, your snark above is precisely the problem. The consensus is hardly "site-wide," it is merely the people who showed up, mostly the bullies. Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Schrocat, the truth is the truth, I am not "overly-emotive," I am merely descriptive of what is already there, including some of your own comments. It may be difficult to see your own actions mirrored back at you, but that is precisely what I think needs to be ratcheted down.   Montanabw (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Blofeld, I suspect "people who write the articles as they're writing it" is the rub, I believe that the actual arbcom decision was something more like "editors" - not specified as to whether these are just the lead editors or also the wikignomes and wikifairies. Hence why we are here  Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, I like your proposal a). I think that the three day rule is probably something everyone could live with. I strongly dislike your c) as this would be a temptation for someone to nom a FA for TFA just to shut down such discussions. That said, raising an infobox discussion should be a talk page issue and not a TFA issue, so if it's raised at a TFA proposal, it should just be summarily dispatched back to the article and not be an issue for TFA in either direction. I am leaning against your b), for the same reasons as c); no harm in having a discussion about the issue, but it isn't relevant to TFA or not TFA. Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, not sure you read my above clearly; I can see your argument for a 3-day moratorium on massive changes (though not discussion), it's the rest I have issues with. Montanabw (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld, you make a point about articles WITH infoboxes, but I think RexxS is correct that never in the history of WP TFA has someone come in and demanded an infobox in a "stable" (horse pun intended) article be removed. Again, infoboxes are the future, and those opposing them are drawing a Maginot Line that, like all anachronisms, will not be easily defended down the road... Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto
How sad that we find ourselves here. I was a co-author for Hattie Jacques and I felt compelled to write here, although I have been very brief in the discussions on the talk page. TFA is a very bitter sweet experience for me owing to the same old infobox arguments which occur during, and in the days after TFA. Now, I like RexxS; I find him to be a very knowledgable and approachable fellow and he has helped me out on many, many occasions with my many technical issues. However, I am dismayed with his his attempts to force the infobox issue onto yet another article that chooses not to have one and then run off to the arbitrators when things don't go his way. This behaviour seems indicative of someone who is trying to force infoboxes onto an article that choose not to have one.

The infobox debate is as old as the hills and to have it discussed everytime an infoboxless article appears on TFA is a pain in the backside. I am not completely opposed to them; they can be helpful on political, geographical, sporting and film articles, but I find them utterly useless on Classical music and theatrical biographies as well as art and architecture pages. I am sick to the back teeth of the same old arguments after TFA. I really can't be bothered to spend my many months writing FAs, frequently at my own expense, only to have people who haven't had any prior interest in the article to come along and force an infobox on them after TFA.  Cassianto Talk   11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bencherlite
As TFA coordinator, I get very worried whenever I see writers of FAs say that they do not want their articles to appear on the main page for whatever reason. Some dislike dealing with the vandalism. Some dislike dealing with the low-quality edits (inaccurate content, bad grammar, poor style, unreferenced nonsense and trivia) that goes with the territory of being "Today's featured flypaper article". And now we see users, new and not so new, think that TFA day is a great time to mention adding an infobox to an article. While there is no rule that prevents this from happening, it is hardly tactful timing and it appears to be adding a new worry for some editors. Perhaps to avoid this, I should refuse to schedule any FA that does not have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about adding one) as well as any FA that does have an infobox (to avoid unfortunate discussions about removing it). Only half-joking on this point... Now, helping bring an article to featured status does not absolve you from having to discuss infoboxes if someone raises the issue (and, frankly, for all that some arbs might wish that particular editors dropped the subject for six months, even if that wish came true the problem still won't go away). But I do think that issues such as infobox discussions should not be allowed to impair the TFA experience. Infoboxes can of course be discussed before, during and after the whole FA nomination process, but a time-out zone for TFA would help remove one area of particular tension. Someone can probably find links or diffs to prove me right or wrong, but I have a recollection that someone was previously topic-banned from adding infoboxes / raising infobox issues on articles that were, or were about to be, at TFA. What I would like to suggest is this: This idea would not make everyone happy but it may be an interim solution of sorts. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither in the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox camp, although I am probably not alone in belonging to the are-these-boxes-really-worth-so-much-time-one-way-or-the-other camp. BencherliteTalk 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) There is a moratorium on all discussions about adding or removing infoboxes on any article that is (a) Today's Featured Artice (including the three days immediately following when it is still linked from the main page); (b) scheduled to be Today's Featured Article; or (c) under discussion at WP:Today's featured article/requests.
 * 2) Any uninvolved editor may summarily close any discussion started in breach of this.
 * 3) Enforcement in whatever the usual way is for such things.

@Montanabw: I've found the link I was thinking of although it was a community decision not an Arbcom one, and was for all edits to TFAs not just infoboxes. NB the decision was to ban the individual from all articles nominated or scheduled as TFA, not just the TFA - if FA writers are inhibited from having their articles at TFA because of boredom with repeated infobox discussions precipitated solely by the article appearing at TFA, the moratorium has to cover the run-up to TFA day, not just TFA day. Anyway, if Arbcom says that this proposal is not within their remit, it can be discussed elsewhere later. BencherliteTalk 13:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Rexxs: "It is however commonplace for editors to ask why a TFA doesn't have an infobox. That should tell you something." Yes, it tells me that when certain writers of FAs feel that they cannot put up with the additional discussion of infoboxes on top of all the other crap that having an article at TFA brings, they're probably justified in feeling that way since even you say that these discussions are "commonplace". I'm not asking for all FAs to be immune from infobox-related discussions for all time - just that in the period running up to TFA day editors should be spared the hassle of having to defend the decision not to have an infobox. said in the topic ban discussion I mentioned "The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. ... And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them." Similarly said "I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it." Those commments were made in 2012, and here we are in 2014 with TFA authors still feeling demoralized because other editors use TFA day to raise an issue that is obviously not going to result in the principal authors saying "Of course! Why didn't we think of it earlier? Let's add one straightaway!" BencherliteTalk 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please stop putting words in my mouth or misrepresenting my attitude - I am trying to look after TFA authors during the TFA experience, not say that their views are unchallengeable for all time. And I'm not saying that editors raising the question should be sanctioned simply for raising a question when (hypothetically for these purposes) there is consensus not to allow such questions to be raised during TFA, merely that such discussions should be stopped until the article is off the main page. This latest issue arose because some TFA authors had to respond to comments such as "To be honest it makes the page look misleadingly incomplete to not have one there, giving people the initial impression that the whole article may not be that complete" (Talk:Hattie Jacques). That is not an appropriate way to discuss the issue, particularly not when having an article at TFA brings enough stresses anyway. That is "hassle" - or perhaps you think it's an appropriate comment? That is an approach of some (not all) on the pro-infobox side that requires TFA authors to justify or defend their position. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could show me the last time that an infobox discussion at a TFA led to the uncontroversial addition of an infobox. This whole infobox issue is poisoning some FA authors' attitudes to TFA, and that's why I made my suggestion, because TFA is my area of especial concern – otherwise I would simply have stayed away from the whole bloody issue. I do not want to have any more unwilling participants at TFA – I have enough of those already... ;-) BencherliteTalk 11:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Passing comment by Wnt
Note: I have no idea what the present dispute is

It amazes me how different policy becomes whenever it's inside a little black border. WP:LINKSPAM is so out of control that people routinely delete lists of unused references from the See Also sections of half-written articles, yet we have infoboxes like Template:The Beatles that spam 200 links to each of 200 articles, so people on Google can't look up what two songs have in common without getting 200 spam hits from Wikipedia that link both articles. Or for BLP -- if I wrote in the lede section of Stop Islamization of America that those people had something to do with the Srebrenica massacre purely on account of their condemnation of Islam, I'd be lucky not to get blocked. But put it over in the black box under an icon (the only illustration in that article) that has no particular relevance to their group, and you're golden. ArbCom and other admins should look for ways to have a more consistent policy, inside and outside the box. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I have just read this request, and I have to wonder whether I've read the same page as the arbitrators who have commented on it? RexxS asked the committee for a very simple clarification of one of its decisions about which there has been a disagreement. If the committee is not prepared to clarify the meaning of its decisions it should close this page and personally deal with the fallout from its ambiguous wording.

Personally I think giving clarification when asked for in good faith is a core part of being arbitrator in the exactly same way, and for exactly the same reasons, that giving clarification and explanation of your actions when requested in good faith is a core requirement of being an administrator.

So, to cut to the chase, which of the following statements is the intended meaning of the word "editors" in the sentence: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

The editor or editors who started the article <li> The editor or editors who have put the most work into the article</li> <li> All editors who have made significant contributions to the article</li> <li> All editors who have made significant contributions to this or other similar articles</li> <li> All editors who have contributed to the article</li> <li> All interested editors</li> </ol>

Each of A-F is a reasonable interpretation of a statement made by one or more people who have commented here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you by Gerda
Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for your beautiful, and thank you, arbitrators, for clarification of the questions just above, as soon as possible. I still hope that in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, all interested editors may speak up at all times, but if that needs to be restricted, please precisely so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @LFaraone: I didn't bring the case up at the election, I asked only one specific question about one diff, to see for whom I could vote. The majority of the candidates who dared to look (including you) looked at it my way. The two editors who helped each other in that uncontroversial Planyavsky case, Andy and I, were restricted, the discussions go on. I fail to see how the difference between can cause so much heated emotion, - I came to the topic late and regard myself as cool, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

More praise to Dr. Blofeld for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Clapping also for Brianboulton (for an identibox in a TFA) and Voceditenore (for an infobox in an opera), da capo! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think NE Ent hit the nail on the head with his statement. What I am seeing here is that this is a disagreement about the meaning of something Blofeld said, not about what the committee said. That being the case I see no need to clarify the committee's previous stated position. I also strongly agree with the portion of Victoria's statement pertaining to walking away. I wasn't involved in the original case but this petty bickering reflects poorly on everyone involved and the project would be better served if they personally avoided both discussions of infoboxes and one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wnt, you may have a point about the policies involved, but arbcom does not make and cannot make or alter content policies. Only the community may do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing for us to do here, because we may not make policy. However, I'd like to invite all editors involved to voluntarily step away from the topic of infoboxes, regardless of their opinion on the matter, for six months. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Briefly commenting here to point out that whether or not Wnt's comments are valid they are nothing to do with this case and the dispute in question. This case and this dispute was/is about infoboxes (there is a help page, a MoS page, and WikiProject page, but bizarrely no WP namespace page on infoboxes). These are different from the boxes Wnt is referring to, which are navboxes, which can be footers or sidebars. They perform completely different functions and shouldn't be confused. Will try and return to the substance of this request in a few days time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer Thryduulf and User:RexxS, you should be asking those questions of the community of editors that cares enough about infoboxes to determine community policy on them. That discussion should not take place at the Manual of Style talk page (infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue - though maybe it is deep down an aesthetic style issue of how to present the information and whether to present it in this style or not). It should also not take place at the Help talk page, as help pages are meant to help with technical matters of how to do something, not whether to do something. It should also not take place at the WikiProject talk page, as WikiProjects are just meant to co-ordinate, not to set policy. I have no idea why Infobox redirects to the WikiProject page. The rather bizarre conclusion (was this discrepancy not noted in the arbitration case?) is that there is no current policy or standalone guideline page on infoboxes (existing examples are Article titles and Categorization, which are a policy and guideline separate from the related style guidelines). The suggested community discussions should be aimed at looking at existing practices and best practices (probably already documented on the three existing pages: help, WikiProject and MoS) and coming up with a policy or standalone guideline on infoboxes that has widespread consensus (hint: not just the views of those active in the case). If you need ArbCom to pass another motion to tell you that (again), you are missing the point. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd smile upon such a proposal such as the one put forth by Bencherlite, but I'm not sure that falls under the direct remit of the committee and it's not something I'd be willing to propose. I wish people would just step back from the issue, for six months at minimum. NativeForeigner Talk 02:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My core argument is will those both for and against infoboxes please take a step back, cool off, and approach this all in a civil manner rather than attempting to bring up the issue as much as possible in every available venue. To be honest, I don't give a damm if an article has an infobox or not, and in my naivety thought perhaps Bencherlite's proposal would help to disengage the area, but judging by your response I find it unlikely. In any case, there is little more to be said regarding this request for clarification that would be productive. NativeForeigner Talk 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Further community discussion along some of the lines opened above would be welcome, but no action is needed on the clarification request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The finding of fact is a reflection of community policy, not an establishment of new policy. The continuance of requests here in this matter is discouraging; I concur with on all points. I admit to having not reviewed the case before Gerda brought it up during WP:ACE2013, however since then it has become my go-to case for when I'm explaining what ArbCom handles to a non-Wikipedian. L Faraone  00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that what's needed here is a clarification of the policy itself, not the finding of fact. I'd encourage the community to discuss this further, but the issue does not fall within the Committee's remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Ryulong (February 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) at 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Requests for arbitration/Ryulong
 * Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

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

Statement by Ryulong
Lately, I have been the target of harassment by a slew of sockpuppets of editors who have been banned from this website, in some cases for years. Allegedly, these count as "users with whom [I am] in dispute". Is this correct? Considering how WP:SPI is chronically backlogged and as is evident banned users have all the free time in the world to continue their harassment campaigns, using the #wikipedia-en-spi channel or using IRC to contact an administrator who has been assisting me in on-site requests to notify them of new sockpuppets will solve these issues affecting the site as well as my ability to participate on this site without constant harassment.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron (actually, with most of the previous investigation held under Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon and Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon because of Zarbon suffering harassment and impersonation) and Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813 (highly likely to be / [both same operator], cases previously Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver & Sockpuppet investigations/Don't Feed the Zords).— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nug's posting here is irrelevant and retaliatory to the content dispute currently under discussion at Talk:Soviet Union, as has been most of his behavior to me since I re-entered the discussion on that page for the past week, including his attempts to WP:boomerang the thread I started at WP:ANI and his piling onto discussions started by banned users' sockpuppets. The thread he points to at ANI, after he repeatedly tried to derail it, had an administrator arrive and note that the behavior of the user I was reporting was problematic. Sending a message to N-HH to inform him of renewed discussion that he was once a party to is not canvassing, nor is suggesting to him the possible venues in which to raise our problems with Nug's behavior on the article. And no, the "alleged harassment" has not ended. The fact that one banned user has been harassing someone for 8 years and another has returned a year after his last socks were shut down shows that both individuals who have harassed me in the past several weeks will continue to do so once they find the technical means to evade the blocks put in place, as they seem to be adept at.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point I don't know if enforcing the ban counts as harassment when it comes to one of the users (see all the edits between protections [also for some reason he's violating copyright now]) but if something can be done about that, then by all means help me figure that out.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat snarky comment by Wehwalt
"Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption."

I am delighted to see such a common-sense statement on ArbCom, though the barn door is long locked on vacancy. That being said, I support the request and motion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will add that perhaps it is about time that the community and ArbCom worked together to sunset remedies after, say, two years, unless ArbCom made a specific, fact-based finding that a longer period was necessary, and I don't mean boilerplate. That would include community and administrator imposed blocks and bans.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @AGK: Do you mean on changing the policy or thereafter? If the latter, I would amend to say "will not be enforced after two years".  Probably "legwork" would only happen if someone asked to return.  I doubt there would be many.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Callanecc
See User talk:Callanecc, WP:ANI, Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813/Archive. And for the record, I also support the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nug
Ryulong's seems to have an apparent tendency to seek administrative intervention against perceived content opponents, for example this recent ANI thread titled "Nanshu's ad hominem attacks". I've lately come to his attention and this apparent attempt at canvasing here concerns me as I am afraid IRC could be used as a back channel to agitate against his perceived opponents without their knowledge. The existing mechanism at ANI and SPI obviously work, it's transparent and the alleged harassment has ended. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Helpful input from Cla68
Ryulong, did you ask for help from the Wikimedia Foundation with all the harassment you have been getting? They are usually really on the ball and eager to help en.wp editors, especially prolific content editors and/or administrators such as yourself, be free from bullying, intimidation, or harassing behavior. The WMF is especially responsive and appreciative of those volunteers that have spent large percentages of their lives helping improve this project. Haven't you been offered the free T-shirt recently, for example? If so, doesn't that mitigate all the harassment you have received over the years? Cla68 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse since I was involved in dealing with the harassment Ryulong is referring to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Given that five years have elapsed, I am open to modifying or vacating this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had a chance to review the original sanction I think we can and should just vacate it and will post a motion to that effect shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do hope everyone involved in this discussion understands exactly what this sanction means. It doesn't actually prevent Ryulong from doing anything, it only says that he may be reported to ANI or AE if he is found to be asking for help on IRC. "May be reported" not "must be reported", not "will be blocked for" not "is ordered not to ever do" or anything else. And according to the enforcement logs on the case page this has not been a significant issue in the five years this rather toothless sanction has been in place. I just don't see how a sanction like this is helping anyone as all it says is something may happen, which would be true whether or not arbcom said so half a decade ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ryulong, before I vote on the motion below, can you provide more details about the recent harassment? If you want to e-mail the details, that is fine, but a pointer on-wiki or by e-mail to some recent SPI pages would help. I want to get a feel for how much of this sort of thing is going on and what potential there is for innocent editors to get caught up in an over-zealous sweep of the area if your proposed alternative to the SPI route is taken. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A significant undertaking. Who will do the legwork? AGK  [•] 23:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So if this is a good idea, shouldn't Remedy 3(B) be removed too? "Ryulong is admonished ... [f]or contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." (emphasis mine). Seems like, at least in theory, voting to get rid of the enforcement mechanism without dealing with this remedy achieves exactly nothing; with or without the enforcement mechanism, people can still go to ANI or AE if he violates an un-rescinded remedy. To be clear, the Arbs supporting this motion so far all believe Ryulong should be allowed to request admin action on IRC or via email, correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Motion (Ryulong)


The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

Enacted - Rschen7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) As proposer. Regardless of the original merits of this sanction, five years later it does not appear to be serving a legitimate purpose in preventing disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Serves no useful purpose,  Roger Davies  talk 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) As above. AGK  [•] 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Given the further details provided, am happy to support vacating this sanction. However, this doesn't give Ryulong (or any user) carte blanche to make repeated requests via IRC or other off-wiki communication methods in the absence of an on-wiki paper trail. Those administrators, SPI clerks and checkusers responding to his requests must still perform due diligence to ensure that the requests are genuine (i.e. that they are harassment and not a content dispute) and that innocent users are not swept up in this. Ryulong, if the harassment continues, I would encourage you to e-mail the functionaries mailing list to discuss other options. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Not currently useful to protect the project. L Faraone  00:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree that this sanction is no longer necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Technically this is an enforcement provision, not a remedy. But I agree that it should be vacated. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Although please file more complicated requests on wiki. NativeForeigner Talk 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, though with the caveats above, that complex requests or those which are not time-sensitive should preferentially be filed on-wiki, and that requests made offline must be logged and documented at least after the fact. For Floquenbeam's concern, an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy. Ryulong still should remember to be cautious in making IRC requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Albeit with a little more reluctance than my colleagues, and a note that behavior on IRC is still required to meet community norms. However, it can't possibly be true that "an admonishment is not an enforceable remedy" if the admonishment includes a directive not to do something; otherwise what is the point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the other supporters. Ryulong should still be cautious about how he proceeds in making allegations, both on- and off-wiki. But he should not be subject to harassment, either, or denied a means of dealing with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * For now, mostly to get others' attention regarding my comments in the section above. I see we're at 8 supports, but I'd suggest not closing this out until Remedy 3(B) is dealt with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (changed to support)


 * Abstain



Motion (Ryulong 2)
During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

Enacted - Rschen7754 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Sorry this got missed in the original motion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) With 1 passing, no harm in this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) It's not exactly elegant to word this in a way that re-publishes an admonition based on behavior from five years ago, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) L Faraone  02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7)   Roger Davies  talk 07:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Brad. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) AGK  [•] 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Ala Brad. NativeForeigner Talk 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Clarification request: BLP special enforcement (March 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  at 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * this display of infinite wisdom

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

Statement by Harry Mitchell
I would like clarification of the above linked decision, in which five arbitrators, demonstrating their apparently infinite wisdom, declined a case regarding Kevin Gorman's application of an active arbitration remedy, BLP special enforcement. Specifically, I would like ArbCom to clarify:
 * Whether all the sensible arbs are on holiday, and how future such holidays affect case requests;
 * whether it finds Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement acceptable;
 * if not, why it saw no need for even so much as an admonishment of Kevin Gorman;
 * why it felt that a novel interpretation of one of its own remedies did not merit even a motion, much less a case; and
 * how your failure to act regarding the invocation of an active arbitration remedy affects future enforcement of that remedy,
 * specifically whether admins are entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions.

On Kevin Gorman
I've seen a lot of absurd decisions in my time, but Kevin's warning to Eric Corbett, citing the BLP special enforcement remedy, is the single most ludicrous interpretation of an arbitration remedy by an admin I've ever seen; similarly, ArbCom's abdication of responsibility for the actions taken in the enforcement of its remedies by refusing to accept the case is possibly the single worst decision I have ever seen from that body. Both titles have no end of competition. Although Kevin has since admitted that he erred, I do not feel that he fully understands what a monumental lapse in judgement his actions were (for the record, I made some stupid decisions when I was a baby admin, but none of them to do with arbitration remedies) and so a desysop or at least formal, severe admonishment is necessary. By refusing to promptly acknowledge his error, and by repeatedly insulting and attempting to denigrate the subject of his action, Kevin failed to adhere to the policy on admin accountability&mdash;a policy which, unfortunately, only ArbCom has the power to enforce&mdash;and arguably brought the entire admin corps into disrepute.

On BLP special enforcement
Leaving the admin accountability issue as an entirely separate matter (perhaps this should be treated as two clarification requests arising from the same demonstration of infinite wisdom?), Kevin explicitly invoked BLP special enforcement, an arbitration remedy, which puts disputes over the propriety of such action squarely and unambiguously within ArbCom's remit; the only explanation I can think of for your failure to accept a case so obviously within your remit is that the five of you have taken leave of your senses. BLP special enforcement is an active arbitration remedy, so allowing novel interpretations to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid is bound to lead to creep by encouraging other admins to make similar novel interpretations to shoehorn their actions into the protection of arbitration remedies. I note also that it is in contrast to the actions of your more sensible colleagues at the discretionary sanctions review, where arbitrators have made a conscious effort to prevent such creep and to narrow the gulf between the admin corps and the community as a whole. ArbCom needs to clarify its position, not give one message in one forum and a contradictory message in another, and most of all, it needs to clarify the bounds of admin discretion on BLP special enforcement as sane arbs are trying to do with discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth: I'm not upset (though that's the wrong word) about Kevin's actions, but unfortunately about yours and your colleagues'. Regardless of the merits of Kevin's actions and his fate, we can't have admins just making things up as they go and using arbitration remedies to protect their actions. Your answers to my questions are, of course, the answers I hoped I'd hear, but without a motion or similar, what's to stop another admin doing the same thing in a fe moths' time? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Roger et al, would you consider adding a clause like "admins are expected to exercise care and judgement in the enforcements of arbitration remedies" or word to that effect? Personally, I'd like to see ArbCom expressly state that shoddy enforcement in general will not be taken lightly rather than just noting that Kevin's interpretation in particular was shoddy. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper
In brief: what Harry said (though maybe not quite as emphatic?)

At length: well, I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing, so I'll just copy and paste my comment from last time: The...thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something. I understand the desire to make a sensitive topic go away, but I don't think this angle of it is a good one to go uncommented. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
It is hardly mystifying why BLP was invoked. BLP covers controversial, unsourced statements about recently dead people. The admin evidently thought in a conversation that prominently involved thinly veiled referrals to a recently dead person, that the statement was in that vein (controversial and unsourced), others disagree that it was in referral to the recently dead - but the objected to comment actually invoked an action (placing a mental health template) that the recently dead was explicitly said to have taken. So, a discretionary warning was issued, and as far as tools are concerned, it went no further. A problem with discretion is that others will see it differently, and even if "wrong" to others that does not mean a warning was not in discretion. As for the subsequent incivility of the admin, multiple users have rightly admonished the Admin, but a clarification request won't clarify that the admin was incivil and that he and all admins should not repeat such incivility. If this committee wants to own the admonishment or defer to a lower level of dispute resolution, like an RfC/U or RfC on BLP discretionary warning, well and good, but as it has already essentially done the later, then what more is there to do.


 * Leaky Caldron is making a category error, along with his accusation of bad faith. The only post that could be said to be critical of the dead was the one objected to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever this commitee does, it cannot endorse the illogical notion that a statement that an edit violates a policy is an impermissable insult. Otherwise, we can never discuss breaches of policy.  Criticisms of edits (no matter how much a person invests themselves in them) is the way the Pedia developes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ; ; ; ; : To avoid having to open another clarification request per Nuclear Warfare's comment - what do you mean, here? BLPBAN links to BLP which contains WP:BDP, so recently dead people are covered by its terms - but are you saying you are amending it to give BLPBAN a new meaning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You made the rather dramatic and as far as your statement went utterly vague and unsupported claim that "real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands." So, the case has been "reopened" to pass an "admonishment", which because of the way that reopening has turned out literally no one respects, nor will ever respect -- now, that's damage to the project. So, in the future, you should consider the wisdom of the ancients: 'let sleeping dogs lie.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
I wasn't overly concerned with the decline. Neither you, Simon, nor the fifty thousand, nor the Romans, nor the Jews, nor Judas, nor the twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes, nor doomed Jerusalem itself understand what power is, understand what glory is, understand at all. Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar lyric.

The simple fact of the matter is that, following Kevin's misjudgement, and more so the bobbing and weaving non-apology apologies which followed, he has painted a huge wiki-target on his back, and if he ever tried to pull another stunt like that again, the reaction from the community would be rapid and extreme, regardless of what the committee did or failed to do.

And I had decided to sit this one out -- until I saw the first arb comment. Give the committee Scope and responsibilities explicitly states it's the committee's duty to "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." (emphasis mine), Carcharoth's explanation "there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic." is inadequate. You could have easily directed Kevin and all editors wishing to submit evidence to do by email and hold discussion off-wiki. Concurrent with your claim of "admonishment in all but name" is an arbcom clerk arguing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&diff=596615866&oldid=596615251] 'it's important to announce motions ... and cases being closed as they change or introduce arbitration policy or restrictions on editors or pages. However declined cases and requests for clarification and amendment don't. ' (emphasis mine). Being listed at Arbitration_Committee isn't like being listed at Editing Restrictions "following discussion at a community noticeboard." Ya'll volunteered and campaigned for this -- so do your job already. NE Ent 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So are ya'll seriously gonna to announce that "an out of process sanction which has no effect is rescinded?" You might want to think this through before wrapping this this up. NE Ent 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
I'd like to thank Harry Mitchell for raising this clarification. I was appalled by the Committee's handling of the request and see that there are unresolved issues which it is the Committee's, as well as the community's, best interests to handle. These include:
 * the claim that secret evidence provided to the Committee justifies Kevin's actions – obviously you cannot (and will not) reveal private communication but you can (and should) tell us whether it influenced your decisions and whether there are facts not publicly known which are significant in evaluating this request.
 * the block on Giano – yes, he was edit warring, but he was asked by arbitrator NuclearWarfare not to revert again, responded (so he clearly knew of the request and that he had been reverted again) and as requested did not revert, instead retitling the thread on his talk page but was still blocked by arbitrator Seraphimblade shortly afterwards. Blocks are supposed to be preventative.  Giano had not acted to revert after NW's request, and indeed had responded to it.  His response clearly communicated his irritation but did not indicate any intention to revert again, nor did his actions – certainly he had time to revert again and knew his change had been undone, but this he did not do.  NW would have been acting within administrator discretion by imposing a block as preventative, but given the subsequent events I feel that Serpahimblade's actions in usurping NW's discretion and imposing a block after Giano did not respond with a revert feel much more punitive than preventative.  What was going on here, and has there been discussion amongst the Committee of one arbitrator overruling the discretion of another in their respective exercises of administrator discretion?
 * Addendum: I had forgotten that NW is actually a former-arbitrator rather than a current one, which significantly reduces my concern over Seraphimblade's decision and eliminates the inter-arbitrator conflict issue. I am adding this rather than just editing my comment in case it has been read, it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge my mistake.  EdChem (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin Gorman's comments subsequent to the case decline are quoted here "After two ANI's without action taken, and an RFAR as well, I think it's reasonable that I request you be productive and truthful here or elsewise go elsewhere" – to me, these torpedo any suggestion that Kevin really does believe that he has been admonished in all but name. Kevin sees an RfAr declined "without action taken", as do I and many others, I suspect.  You can state that you do not endorse his actions, but that is how it looks in that you declined to take action, just as happened with Philippe and in pretending that FPaS did not clearly breach INVOLVED by reverting to a preferred version before fully protecting.
 * This request does not only reflect on the actions of Kevin and on the freedom of administrators to act as they please and without serious restraint (especially against editors like Eric and Giano), but it also reflects on the Committee that took this decision and it discourages editors who feel issues of fairness are important. Eric has left over this, a valued content contributor.  Kevin asserts that Eric does more harm in chasing away editors but I vehemently disagree, I for one am far more discouraged by admins treating editors poorly and ArbCom acting poorly and I become disillusioned and quietly depart for some months over issues like this.  You should act to protect the integrity of the community, and if not for that reason, at least to protect your own reputations.

I was very disappointed that you would instruct archiving of the Kevin and FPaS requests, both raised important questions which you chose to dodge. You wrote that "we all have better things to be doing"; I disagree. ArbCom should not view misuse of its own procedures to threaten an editor and then refusal to really engage with what he had done wrong and to offer a sincere apology by Kevin as unworthy of its attention. As for "admonishment in all but name", look at the subsequent comments by Kevin (he has not archived them, you'll have to look in his user page history) I do mean "not" here, Kevin has a selective approach to archiving, which is allowed under policy but leaves an archive that is incomplete and potentially misleading. Adding this comment following this discussion EdChem (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) and the 'apology' he quoted from another user. I do agree though that declining a case "means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed", but I suspect we disagree about what is obvious. To me, it is that this ArbCom is unwilling to say that Eric was mistreated and that Kevin deserves sanction. Worse, it says that poor behavior from administrators will continue to be tolerated. If you want the things that are obvious to be different, then the community will need to see actions, not words.

I am encouraged by your comments, they remind me a little of the election platform which persuaded me to vote for you. The two aspects that you would seek to address in a motion certainly do need to be addressed, and beyond that if possible.

Your comment at the case request indicated that Kevin's actions were problematic, and so you voted to decline a case, a decline that allowed Carcharoth to direct the request be archived. Your reasoning was supported by other arbitrators to take no action. If you really wanted a motion, you needed to act as Seraphimblade did in stating a motion was needed prior to decline and archiving. You could have objected during the four hours after Carcharoth issued the instruction (assuming you were active in that period). A motion now is better than nothing, but only arbitrators could propose a motion and none did; it certainly appears that there was a view that comments are enough, and they are not.

You state that the reasoning at the case request from some arbitrators was unsound. Your reasoning that acting now might be capricious is equally unsound, though Kevin might see it that way. It would, in fact, be good for the Committee to openly declare that they had made an error in judgement and were acting to correct it. I would also prefer that you feel equally appalled by the poor actions of Kevin both in invoking special BLP protections and then accusing Eric of grave dancing as you are by your colleagues implications of your own insensitivity towards the deceased.

as probably the most respected arbitrator and one with a reputation for sensitivity towards issues, I was shocked and disappointed by your vote to decline the case. Your reasoning was unsound, there was much that the Committee could have done that would have been positive, and the focus on the request name was legalistic. Yes, the name was non-neutral, but was that really the only issue you saw as warranting comment? Before you comment here, please, stop and think carefully about what Kevin did to Eric and what that means for Kevin's judgement, for Eric, and for everyone watching who has taken a view following the events. Did Kevin's use of special BLP meet the Committee's expectations? Were his gravedancing comments and subsequent refusal to respond adequately consistent with expectations of administrator behavior? What does the Committee doing nothing signal to the community? How will declaring that there is secret evidence available only to ArbCom, coupled with ArbCom saying nothing and doing nothing, be seen? Does the project need more editors who see administrators acting as a privileged and unaccountable class? Yes, my questions reflect my view and sure, there are others worth asking. Please, answer some of them.

Just to conclude: I have a mental health condition. At times, my ability to edit is not good which is one reason for taking breaks. I disagree with Eric that I should stay away from Wikipedia and I think the community can do much better in supporting editors who have difficulties. That said, making a disclosure is also difficult as it reveals a weakness that can be exploited. Also, I agree with Eric that Wikipedia is not the place to get medical help; for that, I go to medical professionals. I can contribute here at times I cannot handle working full-time, and I do think Wikipedia is important. I am far far more likely to leave over poor treatment by administrators and ArbCom refusing to act in such cases than I am over robust (and even Eric's brand of sometimes over-the-top) discussion / debate. I am certain that I am not alone. ArbCom have mishandled the FPaS, Philippe, and now the Kevin Gorman case requests. You need to do better. You can start by fixing one mistake and prove that administrator mistreatment of editors is unacceptable – no matter who the editor is – and that the Committee will not reflexively support administrators invoking its procedures in unjustified (and worse, in unjustifiable) ways. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

 * EdChem's quote from Giano's talk is taken out of context. You can see most of section that EdChem's quote is from here. User:Ihardlythinkso used half-quotes from previous posts of mine to try to show that I was not being truthful. I replied pointing out that IHTS was taking half-quotes out of context and that my comments when taken in full were true. After IHTS continued using half-quotes from me, I asked him to stop or leave my talk page. I do not believe that asking someone to quote my comments in full indicates in any way that I don't realize my initial actions were inappropriate.


 * I made large mistakes and would not handle the situation in anything approaching the same way again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Participants please note that the RFAR has been reopened out of process, so there are currently two pages discussing this - here and here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IHTS: you had plenty of time to respond to me pointing out that your comments were not accurate representations of what I said, given that I pointed that out almost immediately after your first post and left the thread intact for more than an hour. If you cannot figure out how to reply to someone asking you to stop misrepresenting what they've said in less than an hour, something is off.  Almost every single statement you made contained direct misrepresentations of what I said, which you still continue to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Kevin by Ihardlythinkso
Oh that is totally wrong, Kevin. The fact is I had no opportunity to address or discuss with you your complaint about quotations being misinterpreted because 1) Cullen328 zoomed into that thread from nowhere then and started criticizing me, causing deflection to the topic and delay in my ability to respond to you since I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands), and 2) even as quickly as I responded to Cullen I found it was impossible to post a prepared response to you, since one minute after my response to Cullen you deleted the entire thread and gave editsum instructions to the world to delete any further posts of mine on your user Talk. I can't believe the dodgy and manipulative way you handle things, Kevin, including your pat "no good will come from this" when you delete editors' valid concerns as a way to sweep away criticism and maintain your false posture of being "right". The fact that you have chosen to bicker with me dishonestly over irrelevancies when you have many more serious issues to deal with in this important RFAR shows a continued thin-skinned brittleness and lack of judgement on your part that demonstrates your unsuitability to hold the title of admin. I would like to know from User:Cullen328 if he is one of the admins who adivsed you that spurred you to take action at Jimbo's Talk against Eric Corbett, since Cullen was both quick to defend you both at Jimbo's Talk and at Eric's Talk, and quick to get involved with me (chiding me to "move on" and "work on improving the encyclopedia" and "What is accomplished by continuing to question Kevin on this?") when attempting to followup with you at your Talk after the previous RFAR had been closed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Cullen, I made it clear to Kevin at the outset of the thread opened at his Talk, and to you in the same thread, that my focus was on the on-wiki part of "flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki". There was only one admin who gave criticism that Kevin potentially took to heart, not the five admins he implied by listing in the previous RFAR. In spite of limiting my focus and making the limitation painfully clear, you choose to "not understand" even into this RFAR?! (That's amazing.) The one of the five (User:Writ Keeper) admins whom Kevin potentially took criticism to heart, detailed to Kevin how his reasoning was a misapplication of BLP . In subsequent comments Kevin has still insisted that his BLP concerns were consistent with "the spirit of BLP/BDP and the WMF resolution on BLP", so, I guess that leaves 0.5 admins out of the 5 admins Kevin listed at the previous RFAR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ihardlythinkso by Cullen328

 * I am not an administrator, and have never been one. I am proud to be an experienced editor on this project and hope that my peers consider me a productive one. I commented on Jimbo's talk page early in the disputed thread, before either Eric or Kevin got involved. My comment was in favor or kindness and compassion in the interaction between all editors. In no way, shape or form did I encourage Kevin to intervene. When the dispute between Kevin and Eric developed, I stepped back, though I did remind Eric that BLP applies also to those who have recently died. I have known both editors for several years. Eric gave me great help bringing an article I worked on to Good Article status. I have met Kevin at several Edit-a-thons, and encouraged his Wikipedia participation. I am not taking sides in the dispute, and wish both editors well. Kevin approached me on February 11 to discuss the matter off-wiki, through a Facebook private message, and I advised him to take it easy and not escalate matters. I was advising caution and restraint, gently criticizing some of what Kevin had done. When came to Kevin's talk page and said that Kevin had been misleading when he said a "flood" of editors had offered critical advice to him on and off-wiki, I stepped forward to confirm that I had myself offered such advice off-wiki. Ihardlythinkso seemed to argue that any off-wiki advice was irrelevant. I simply responded that I thought it was relevant to the substance of Kevin's quoted words that I had offered Kevin off-wiki advice, and that pointing that out was both logical and fair, and that analyzing what a "flood" was in this context was not helpful. Ihardlythinkso was, shall we say, unpersuaded by my attempt at logic and reason. Others can read the exchange and judge for themselves. Thank you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Cas Liber
My piece I said here. I understand Kevin has now apologised but it was such a prolonged and destructive (and entirely avoidable) train-wreck of an interaction on his part that at minimum I think there has to be an official admonishment (sorry Kevin, but the whole episode really sucked). If this place acts on precedents etc. then there needs to be some sort of consistency and line drawn in the sand. Salvo or AGK, or whoever, just make a motion already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron
Between Kevin and Arbcom. the processes for regulating behaviour and adhering to policy have been brought into disrepute. Some clear, simple and definitive action is required to begin to restore confidence. In particular this applies to Arbcom 2014 who's multiple decisions last week in dealing dismissively with unacceptable behaviour by Admins. sets a worrying trend.

Leaving aside the added complexity of the quoted BLP special enforcement, Kevin's first and most serious lapse of judgement and a question he is still yet to answer, is why he thought Eric's comment in the original discussion was the appropriate target for Admin. action. It was the original post by an anonymous editor that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP style protection where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page infringed BDP in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. It takes less than 2 minutes and the attempt to disguise the identity of the deceased using a pseudonym was fatuous. Blaming Eric for a serious BLP/BDP violation while ignoring the same clear behaviour by the IP made no sense then and despite numerous attempts to justify it, will never make any sense. The fact that in some people's view Eric walks around with a large target on his back in no way justifies the action pursued by Kevin, and allegedly supported by other Admins and Arbcom. members off-wiki.

The allegations of tacit support by other functionaries must also be explained. Frankly it looks like a simple attempt to deflect blame and have not been satisfactorily explained despite repeated assurances by Kevin that he would do so.

Finally, the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. is just plain unacceptable, as is Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add. Arbcom was not (re-)elected to abrogate responsibility because matters are "sensitive" and "unfortunate" and while some matters might be "undesirable to publicize further", you need to be careful that you are not open to the accusation of just brushing unpalatable matters under the carpet. Leaky Caldron  11:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

. Well I have no idea what a "category" error is and I have made no bad faith accusations. I have pointed out that the original post enabled the family and friends of the unnamed victim to be readily identified, an action which could lead to implications for them and therefore a breach of the WP:BDP extension to WP:BLP. The sort of implication I'm thinking of is unwanted attention, possible contact from the media, etc. Unless they had provided express consent for that discussion to take place on the founder's page they might have every reason to distressed. I would be. To be clear, our words here do not need to express hostility to cause an adverse implication on close friends and family. Simply raising the subject, even in an indirect fashion, may cause distress if (a) the subject is identifiable and (b) the subject matter contains details that refer to events that the friends and family would prefer not to be discussed here. We don't know, we must assume that distress would be caused. Maybe why Eric was appalled by it? Leaky Caldron  15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by 188.30.20.92
@Carcharoth. Let's look at the comments of the arbs who voted to decline the case.


 * For NewYorkBrad the whole thing was "unfortunate".
 * For David Fuchs Kevin deserved a "trout-slapping".
 * For you the actions of several "were not ideal" but it was best to move on.
 * For Salvio, Kevin had made a personal attack and doubled down on it. That, for Salvio, amounted to "conduct unbecoming".

You inform us that it should be obvious to anyone reading those comments that Kevin will be desysopped if he pulls a stunt like that again. What! Whatever you're drinking, I want one.

The message you sent to the community, and especially to the admins, was not that Kevin would be desyssoped; it was this: ''We reaffirm  that you are free to make personal attacks on editors and to subsequently double-down on those attacks. In the extremely unlikely event that you are brought to account for such an attack, we might say that it was unfortunate, we might make hilarious jokes about trout-slapping, but under no circumstances will take any action against you, nor make any official, on-record criticism of your attack''.

And all this stuff about Kevin being a hapless newbie admin is nonsense. He picked a fight against Eric Corbett on Jimbo's talk page. He knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, given his fantastic interpretation of BLP, it's difficult not to believe that he thought he'd found a loophole which would allow him to deal once and for all with the editor he habitually refers to as Malleus, and was looking for an opportunity to exploit it.

188.30.20.92 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Resolute. It's true that had Kevin picked on a low profile editor, or an ip, it's unlikely he would have ended up here. That doesn't excuse his behaviour. This is about cavalier admin action, and arbcom's distaste for addressing it. It doesn't have much to do with Eric. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (aka 188.30.20.92)


 * @Resolute: I don't want to get dragged in to the Eric saga. Eric is one editor. The real issue here is that Kevin could do what he did and very nearly get away with it. It's not about Kevin vs Eric. It's about ArbCom failing yet again to get a grip on the loose cannon admins. They're a minority, but they're a significant minority. They're the ones who damage the project. They're the ones who drive away editors. Even if Kevin does finally get a slapped wrist, the take-away for the admins is that even if you go bezerk on Jimbo’s talk page, ArbCom will still do its best to look the other way. Anyway, as this is probably not the venue for you and I to discuss this, I probably won't respond further here. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by NuclearWarfare
The BLP policy is quite explicit about whether it should apply to the recently deceased:

"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people."

Now, it is true that WP:BLPBAN is a rather useless policy. Regardless if the remedy is repealed or not, I would, in some circumstances, be OK with blocking and wheel warring with another administrator who overturned my action with regards to a biography of a living person. But if we are going to have it, there is no good reason to use this one hard case to make a bad divergent exception from the status quo. Review the whole policy, yes, but don't make this piecemeal change.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Snark from Resolute
I think 188.30.20.92 inadvertently hit on Kevin's biggest mistake. He ended up in a fight with Eric. That never ends well because of the number of enablers and hangers-on Eric has. As Roger's motion on the case page shows, even several members of Arbcom will act to enable Eric's behaviour and placate him any time he runs off in a huff. Resolute 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin did not act in a vacuum, 188. Eric's own behaviour was dramatically poor in this, and he has a far longer history of similarly poor behaviour.  But it looks like ArbCom has chosen to not only continue it's head-in-the-sand routine on that front, but to double down and reward an editor who pulled a WP:DIVA act.  In my view, both should be sanctioned/admonished, or neither should.  What is happening right now is Arbcrom, led by Roger Davies, playing favourites to the detriment of this project. Resolute 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, 188. The takeaway, as these motions are currently framed, is that you can do what ever you want if you have enough friends. You can drop as many vulgar personal attacks as you want and pull a ragequit Diva routine - and ArbCom will not only turn a blind eye to your behaviour, it will go out of its way to soothe your ego. Can't wait to see this happen again the next time Eric pretends to quit because he didn't get his way. Resolute 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, Resolute. I've seen some questionable behavior by admins that never made it to AN/I, much less ARBCOM. I can't help but think that this case wouldn't have even been brought if it hadn't been action against a long-time, high-profile editor. But Kevin was in a fight with Eric and so this ended up at ARBCOM. He was admonished and life goes on. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"> Read!   Talk!  23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Tryptofish
I think that Gorilla Warfare's comment at 01:26, 24 February 2014, about declining the case, gets it exactly right. I feel like some of you on the Committee are letting yourselves second-guess yourselves too much. It sounds like you are getting so wrapped up in parsing the boundary between BLP and BDP that you are losing sight of the fact that wanting to see a dead editor spoken of with sensitivity is not exactly a high crime. I'm not defending everything that Kevin did, please understand, but as cases of administrative overstep go, this is a borderline one. Unfortunately for Kevin, his minor oversteps stepped into the buzzsaw of those who are looking for an administrator to make an example of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given how the motions are going, my suggestion would be to stop making motions, and just close this without a motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken
Regarding Motion #3 - shouldn't any re-evaluation of WP:BLPBAN come from the community, and not ArbCom, or have I misunderstood the extent of the committee's remit? BMK (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to associate myself with Dennis Brown's second comment below - there is no overwhelming need for BLPBAN to be overhauled, but if it is going to be re-examined, I'd much prefer that it be done by community discussion and consensus, and not by the committee, which is charged, I believe, with interpreting policy, and not making it. In any case, the rush to "fix" BLPBAN appears to be an over-reaction to the re-opening of the original case.  I urge the committee not to adopt any of these motions. BMK (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth - The problem is that the "implicit" involvement of the community is not spelled out anywhere in any of these motions, and because of that the motions appear to be reserving to ArbCom the authority to overhaul the BLPBAN policy, a power that I do not think the committee has. It may act to help prompt or goad the community into taking action by setting up the circumstances of a discussion, or even initiate one and then back away (to comment as regular editors) but I don't believe it can set-up a committee-run and -regulated review of a policy, and relegate the community to second-class participants or, worse, observers. BMK (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I was in error about the provenance of WP:BLPBAN, as pointed out by T. Canens, I have struck out my comments about it, which are clearly in error. As a remedy created by ArbCom, it is obviously within the committee's remit to re-examine and alter if they feel it necessary. BMK (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion by Court jester NE Ent
I'd noted this many days ago, but refrained from bringing it up 'cause no one likes a wikilawyer. But since ya'll seem to be in wikilawyer modality, here's a motion:

"The BLPBAN warning by Kevin doesn't count because he didn't RTFM and log it on WP:Editing Restrictions, it just doesn't count, it didn't happen, we're done with this morass, and we hope to hell March is kinder month to Arbcom '14" NE Ent 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note by Dennis Brown
Motion 2, section i is fatally flawed. If BLPBAN only applies to mainspace, then articles in user space, at WP:AFC or other quazi-article locations would be wide open. Articles/pages outside of mainspace are implied to be covered by BLPBAN as it is worded, but this motion would remove that protection by setting a clear precedent that removes BLP protection for those pages. I encourage the Arbs to strike their support and instead oppose Motion 2 based on this flaw. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Is any motion really necessary at this point? Arb doesn't need to demonstrate that it is "on the ball", I just don't see the utility of a motion after the RFAR, and knowing many of the details are understandably private.  Everyone knows his evocation of BLPBAN is null and void, no one is even arguing otherwise.  Worse, redefining BLPBAN via a motion here isn't a good idea.  The cliche "Bad cases make bad law" exists for a reason.  Fix it outside of a case, not during.  Kevin more or less gets it, and a motion isn't going to improve his comprehension nor do anything for the community. Maybe it is time to drop the stick and just move on. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @T. Canens You make part of my point in your last statement, but I would also argue that the wording of BLPBAN also applies to AFC and other "articles" even if they aren't yet in mainspace, ie: anything in mainspace, OR is obviously designed to eventually be put into mainspace (sandbox, AFC) but nothing else. That is the problem with M2, it too narrowly defines where the article can be, creating a bit of a loophole that can be used for soapboxing/POINTs.  IMHO, any needed change to BLPBAN should be made outside of a  motion in a heated case. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Pine
I rarely involve myself in arbitration matters but I'll make an exception here. I oppose Motion 2 for reasons similar to those of Roger Davies. BLP policies should also apply on talk pages and anywhere else on the Wiki although perhaps with less rigor than they do in article space so that there is room for some informal discussion among editors relevant to article content and people relevant to Wikipedia who are living persons. I support Motion 3 and am leaning oppose on Motion 1. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 07:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * I recused on the case request, and I probably should here as well. --Rschen7754 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Harry, I appreciate you are upset at what Kevin Gorman did, but the reason the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. This is the sort of thing where what would normally be done is taking someone to one side and privately admonishing them. This has in effect happened. Kevin has been left in no doubt, by comments made on-wiki and elsewhere, that if he pulls a stunt like this again (in particular, the misuse of BLP special enforcement), he will be desysopped. That should have been obvious to anyone reading the comments made by the arbitrators who declined the case request. It was an admonishment in all but name. To specifically answer your questions: No, Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement was not acceptable. No, admins are not entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions. Does this warrant a formal motion, admonishment or case? In some cases, yes. In this case, no. Declining a case does not mean that the committee is endorsing the actions that were taken. It means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @BMK - all three motions neglect to specify that such a review would be done in concert with the community. The point I made here (before your comment above) was intended to make clear that community consultation is implicit. The current discretionary sanctions review are being carried out in consultation with the community. If community members have strong views on the current BLPBAN provisions, they can start a discussion right now (at the appropriate talk page, providing a courtesy link from here to the discussion) without waiting for the committee to start a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the community does not expect the committee to toss seemingly straightforward cases which fall squarely within its scope. In this instance, the issues embrace four of the five prime areas of committee responsibility. While the tragic event which triggered this dispute requires handling with sensitivity and circumspection, that is not alone a good reason for sweeping the whole thing hurriedly under the carpet. It is well within the committee's ability, for instance, to put restrictions in place, reinforced by robust sanctions if ignored, to enable a case to proceed without visiting inappropriate areas. That said, the essential facts do not seem to be in dispute and the committee can discharge its obligations to the community in full by handling this by motion. As a minimum, the motion must clarify the BLP issues raised and also comment on the actions of the administrator at the eye of the storm.  Roger Davies  talk 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the case request itself,  Roger Davies  talk 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've long thought we should substitute standard discretionary sanctions for WP:BLPBAN, which is a relic of the past and which, technically, only applies to mainspace (although I believe that the remedy in question has also been invoked correctly, in my opinion  with regard to edits made elsewhere, such as WP:ANI, cf. teleological interpretation), whereas WP:BLP applies everywhere. This, however, can be done by motion, if there's any appetite for it. I also still support an admonishment for Kevin and believe we should have admonished him before declining the case request.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * had I seen my colleague's instruction to the clerks, I'd have acted (either by striking my decline vote or by proposing a motion), but it all happened while I was asleep and by the time I woke up the request had already been archived. I probably should have proposed a motion myself earlier, but didn't get the chance, because quite frankly, sometimes, life gets in the way. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, I was thinking something along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all edits concerning living people across all namespaces"... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a potentially cataclysmic unintended consequence of that. It would mean that users editing under their own names would be able to claim BLP protection and DS enforcement for anything detrimental said about them anywhere on wiki that wasn't supported by RS. While I agree that WP:BLPBAN needs updating, we need to move carefully on this to avoid paralysing the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies  talk 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman. A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake. These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case.  AGK  [•] 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's statement that declining a case does not constitute approval of the actions at issue per se, however it certainly does give that appearance. I feel that at a minimum an admonishment was warranted in this circumstance; enforcement actions were taken by an administrator incorrectly in the name of the Committee. I apologise to the community for not being an active participant in the discussion of the case, as I believe a more correct action could have been taken then. We do have the opportunity to fix this now, however, in a way that is appropriate given the sensitive nature of the incident. L Faraone  00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think declining the case was the correct decision, and I would have voted accordingly had I been able to finish looking through it before the case was closed. I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Clerks should not have been directed to remove the request as declined, as Salvio's decline vote, necessary to make acceptance mathematically impossible, was implicitly conditioned on a motion being proposed. (Maybe we should make "deal with by motion" a separate category of votes, to avoid future confusion.) I agree that WP:BLPBAN could use updating, but if we are updating it to standard DS, what's the area of conflict? All BLPs? I'd welcome comments on whether BLPBAN should be updated and what the updated version should be. I still think that a case is unnecessary, and I assume that, based on Roger's comment above and the original votes in the case request, that a majority of the committee not recused in this matter is still of this opinion. Under these circumstances, I think the best way forward is simply for us to propose and vote on the necessary motions in this request. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why reviewing WP:BLPBAN is outside our remit? It's a remedy passed by arbcom in the Footnoted quotes case, not a policy or process created by the community. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion 1 (Kevin Gorman)

 * Proposed:

Further to the current Request for Clarification, the committee notes that: <OL TYPE=i> <li>WP:BLPBAN does not apply to recently deceased people; <li>the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect; <li>the provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by ArbCom and where necessary updated.</ol>


 * Support:
 * See also the companion motion at the case request page,  Roger Davies  talk 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (moving to oppose, per Seraphimblade and others - leaving original comments in place. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) Noting in passing, FWIW, that Kevin did strike his formal warning. Roger is right that WP:BLPBAN does need to be urgently reviewed. I hope he will take the lead on this and ensure it is done in a timely manner, co-ordinating with the rest of the committee and the editorial community as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * As NW points out, WP:BLP is quite clear that it does apply, in some circumstances, to the recently deceased. I see no justification why we should single out this one aspect of the BLP policy and declare it to be unworthy of the protections afforded by the special enforcement provision. If we have to limit BLPBAN before the review takes place, I'd rather limit it to article space and discussions directly related thereto, consistent with the original case's concern about the impact of BLPs on their subjects. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is certainly another approach and I did consider it but went for the simpler option. BLPBAN is not the most used of our sanctions, and the circumstances under which the recently deceased are covered are limited, the change is probably academic. That said, if you want to put up an alternative motion, I'd probably support it. HJ Mitchell has suggested some additional text above, which could be usefully incorporated. On the whole though, this is probably all best left to be thrashed out in a thorough review.  Roger Davies  talk 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I perceive no need for us to "urgently review" the availability of special authority for administrators to deal with BLP policy violations, unless it is to consider reasons why the authority may have been underutilized over the years. The two recent instances in which this authority was misapplied were immediately recognized as outliers and widely criticized as such, and they no more impugn the general validity of BLP special sanctions authority than they do of the BLP policy itself. Any appropriate tweaks to the scope of the BLP policy, if desired, can be addressed through ordinary community discussion. (See also my comments on the motion in the Kevin Gorman case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In a few weeks,, it will be six years since the enforcement remedy was put in place. The community expects us to review our sanctions from time to time to ensure they're still needed and still fit for purpose. As this one is clearly being underused/misused/misunderstood, it could well need some updating. What's more, in the intervening six years, much has changed: for a start, we now have "Draft" namespace. Does WP:BLPBAN apply there? (Yes, it should as it's for articles in the making.) Should WP:BLPBAN apply also to the talk pages of articles within main namespace? (Less obvious, but worth considering.) For the existing remedy, does par. 2 apply only to the defined area in par. 1, or is it a separate broader restriction? Is there anything from the current in-depth review of WP:DSR which could usually improve WP:BLPBAN? In short, I suggest there is much to review, and no time to lose in doing so ;)  Roger Davies  talk 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We can certainly discuss whether this sanction should be modified in some way at the appropriate time, either by us or even better in a community discussion. Although I understand the concept of including the special BLP enforcement authority created in Footnoted quotes in the ongoing discretionary sanctions review, I wouldn't want substantive discussion of BLP policy enforcement to be swallowed up in the largely procedural (albeit important) discussion of DS procedures. What I really oppose more than anything in this motion is that some urgency about reviewing the entire BLP special enforcement authority has been created by the isolated misuse of that authority in one or two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording of BLPBAN is that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy....". As the biographies of living persons policy does specify that under certain circumstances it can apply to the recently deceased, I think this would create an inconsistency. Admins enforcing in that manner would be following both the letter and spirit of BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indented original support and moved to oppose. Seraphimblade (and others) are correct, though given the disagreement among arbs I still think a simpler motion 3 (proposed below) would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose per comments by others above. L Faraone  20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * To add to the confusion, unlike Newyorkbrad I do agree with iii (it'd be convenient to tack BLPBAN onto the back of our DS review). ii is fine with me too. However, I don't comprehend point i of the motion. BLP covers many recently deceased people, including the subject of the original incident here. If BLP covers them, why are we saying BLPBAN does not? The inconsistency in i doesn't compel me to oppose, as BLPBAN is so underused, but I can't endorse this. AGK  [•] 10:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators:

Motion 2 (Kevin Gorman)

 * Proposed:

By way of clarification: <OL TYPE=i> <li>WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace; and <li>Accordingly, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. </ol> The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.


 * Support:
 * Different approach, but equal to #1,  Roger Davies  talk 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Opposing because I prefer M3.  AGK  [•] 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support; as Kevin removed the restriction himself I don't see the need to mention it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPBAN makes clear that it applies to "articles", not all pages. Therefore, this clarification is in line with how the remedy is in fact worded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * It is not at all clear to me that "WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace," or, for that matter, that it should apply only to articles within the main namespace. To be sure, this authority is not intended to limit legitimate discussion of contributors, sources, and so forth, and I imagine that its primary impact will and should be felt within the article space. However, for example, a few months ago I invoked the special sanctions authority to stop an editor from repeatedly inserting the false allegation that a BLP subject gave the order to destroy one of the World Trade Center buildings. When I did so, I meant that the editor had to stop making that assertion anywhere on Wikipedia, not that he had to stop doing it in the BLP itself but was free to continue making this defamatory claim in his userspace or on the noticeboards. In another context, I imposed a BLP restriction that prohibited an editor from (among other things) uploading files concerning a given individual, which I found were being used to harass that individual, and I think that was also within the scope of the authority. It is true that the actual remedy language from Footnoted quotes, referenced in the administrator instructions, refers to "articles," but that remedy was written at a time when topic-bans often used the phrase "article" rather than "page" and were later clarified to mean any page in Wikipedia (excluding special contexts such as appeals from the topic-ban itself). Most important, if we are going to have a review of the BLP special enforcement authority as both this motion and motion 1 suggest, I don't see why we want to prejudge the outcome of it with respect to this issue. Finally, as has been noted, Kevin Gorman struck the wording he purported to impose against Eric Corbett several days ago, and it was clear even before that that the consensus of uninvolved administrators had rejected it, so we don't need to clarify that it has no effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, even if "article" has that very broad meaning the fact that the language has moved on so much that needs reflecting in the text. Apart from the ambiguity you highlight what about "article" means, the word "warning" has also become both charged and ambiguous. Your argument, it seems to me, strongly reinforces the opposite of what you say and that, in fact, this provision really does need urgently reviewing. Secondly, the warning needs to be formally withdrawn because KG's striking through of the warning has no effect. WP:BLPBAN does not recognise administrative discretion to withdraw warniongs or sanctions. What it says is: "Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community". This motion provides that explicit approval. Thirdly, it is unfair on our administrators, and on the community, to leave in place enforcement provisions that leave so much to individual interpretation. (I think this covers David's point as well). Finally, if it is meant to be applied much more broadly than just articles, it raises all sorts of interesting points. If it applies also to userspace, do the users have to prove that they are who they claim to be (for instance if I started editing as User:Reginald Davis) to be covered by the provisions or is mere assertion enough? And may editors seemingly editing under their real names claim BLP protection during AN discussions and insist everything not covered by RS is deleted? This one could keep us and the community busy for decades. Nope, it all needs sorting out.  Roger Davies  talk 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your questions about scope would apply equally to the BLP policy itself. See also my added comment on motion 3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Switching from abstain to oppose. Per below, this needs discussion to work out exactly what BLPBAN means in today's editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * Abstaining. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Initial abstain was because I was not happy with the changes made to part (i). Proposed third alternative below. Later switched from abstain to opposed on motion 2. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion 3 (Kevin Gorman)

 * Proposed:

By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.


 * Support:
 * Proposing third alternative, since there is disagreement among arbitrators as to the scope of BLPBAN. Better to hash it out at a review than at these motions. I've not explicitly stated that the review will be in consultation with the community, as that should be implicit and obvious. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep.  Roger Davies  talk 11:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaked first sentence from "the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman under WP:BLPBAN is rescinded" to "the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect". Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies  talk 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Equal choice with M2, but I take Salvio's point below and would prefer we reword from "rescinded" to something like "overruled" or "invalidated" (as warnings cannot meaningfully be rescinded in this way). AGK  [•] 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, although I too would prefer the reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for this with 2 passing, but also don't see any harm. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * On second thoughts, let's not start rescinding warnings: in the DS review we are currently saying that warnings/alerts can't be appealed. Rescinding Eric's warning now can only send a mixed message and we'll end up with more appeals of warnings/alerts. Let's just close this and review this remedy along with the other discretionary sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Prefer M2. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply to 's comment above: there is no doubt that BLP policy applies across the whole project and all namespaces. BLPBAN, however, is a grant of extraordinarily broad powers to administrators (beyond even the normal discretionary sanctions), and how such broad and difficult-to-overturn individual admin authority would interact with a policy that applies to every page in every namespace in the project was never fully considered when BLPBAN was originally written, as the present case demonstrates. The committee that passed BLPBAN seemed to be primarily concerned with the harm done to article subjects, so it makes sense to limit the extra tools granted by BLPBAN to mainspace, where BLP violations can do the most harm, until the review is complete. Administrators are still able to enforce BLP outside of mainspace with their normal tools. That there are only two dozen or so admin actions logged under BLPBAN clearly demonstrates that the normal tools are generally effective for BLP enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my administrator capacity, I invoked the BLP special enforcement authority three times last year. I've described two of the instances above. The third was a topic ban of User:Qwerty from commenting about BLP subjects (before additional bad behavior was discovered and led to the community ban). Do you, or anyone, question the validity of these actions because they extended beyond article-space? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember at least two of those, NYB. Though I think you mean User:Qworty, not User:Qwerty. And I can't find any log you made of your topic ban against User:Qworty at the sanctions log. One of the reasons for that log is to enable 'big picture' review of the special enforcement authority. Was your sanction against Qworty logged somewhere else? Are there other unlogged sanctions that should be logged there? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) OK, my mistake. I see the Qworty sanction there, but logged by NE Ent, not by Newyorkbrad. I was searching on NYB's username, rather than on Qworty. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * BLPBAN, as it is currently worded, allows admins to ensure BLP compliance of articles by, among other things, banning editors from pages. In other words, misconduct in mainspace is required for sanction, but the sanction imposed can go beyond mainspace. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * I can live with this per Douglas Adams, but I really perceive no need to adopt any motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by arbitrators