Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 78

Amendment request: Tea Party movement (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  — Arthur Rubin (talk) at 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 8.1


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

N/A
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement
 * I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by your Arthur Rubin
It has been 7 months since my last reported violation of the topic ban, although this may be a technical violation, which is part of the reason for my request. Per a previous clarification, I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I was going to make an arguably gnomish edit on Citizen Koch (combining 3 references which all support the same statement into one), and, today, I discovered a MonkBot error on Tea Party movement which I technically cannot fix without violating the topic ban. I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion. If I'm the second and fourth in A → B → A'b → B → B'A', I have made 2 reverts, but I'm actively working on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.  I admit that I consider the IP's edit on Citizen Koch, restored by a real editor, absurd.  But I wasn't planning to actually revert it.  Consolidating 3 references (including the one added by the banned IP) into one isn't reverting the addition.  And I was planning to revert a bot on Tea Party movement.  My further discussion on a potential edit war was hypothetical, but in that particular configuration, I would be trying to improve the article, while the opponent would be attempting to revert to the present state.  However, I would agree to a 1RR limitation if the committee feels it necessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't mean to imply that I would be edit warring; I would prefer to be able to try variations, which would technically be "reverts", as it would probably be changing the wording (which I don't like, or find objectionable, or in violation of Wikipedia policies (but not BLP)) to something more like what was there previously, but it would never be exactly a revert. I'm willing to abide by 1RR per section or 0*RR (never revert reversions of my edits; 0RR is problematic, because of the expansive definition of "revert") if you feel it necessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In regard possible changing the topic ban to 1RR; obviously I cannot dictate the form of the remedy, but I do think the 1RR/area/week allows more legitimate editing than 1RR/article/day. Even a restriction from article-space would allow me to suggest or discuss edits which have made some articles absurd, but not a policy violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Arthur was swept up in the prior case for fairly minor sins, and the "time served" argument which is rarely pertinent actually does apply here as he has "noted" - especially where a result occurs which makes no reasonable sense to any outside observer. Collect (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
The Committee based its findings of edit-warring on the following 4 diffs:


 * 11:42, February 17, 2013


 * 09:00, February 18, 2013


 * 11:28, March 6, 2013


 * 04:13, July 16, 2013

Yep, that's right. Four reverts over the course of 5 months. Had this occurred in a 24 hour period, then sure, yes, this would be edit-warring and would warrant a 24 hour block. But it didn't happen over 24 hours. This is 5 months of editing. We don't topic ban for 4 reverts over 24 hours nor should we topic ban for 4 reverts over 5 months. If we topic-banned every editor who was at 4RR over a 5 month period, there would be scant editors to edit.

Nevermind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.

Face it, the Committee f***ed up and f***ed up royally. Not only should this request be granted, the Committee should apologize for such a ridiculous, absurd ruling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Absolutely the Committee should grant this request. Arthur Rubin is a generally non-combative editor of long standing, and a good contributor. Even in this vexed area (TPM) his editing does not amount to anything sanctionable it would seem. I would urge the Committee to go further and remove the topic ban altogether. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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


 * 1-week 1RR means one revert per week, correct? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Thinking about the request, but in the meantime I'll just say this is the first time I've seen an edit-war described in sonata form notation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, this does not seem to be such a good idea. Just to clarify ... the request is about restoring access to someone who has been topic-banned for edit-editing so that they may return to edit-war. No?  Roger Davies  talk 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I was just taking at face value what you'd written: "I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion". Can you clarify what this means please?  Roger Davies  talk 08:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Edit warring policy as from you've just said you probably won't be sticking to 1RR at all,  Roger Davies  talk 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to downgrade Arthur's sanction to an indefinite 1-rr coupled with the standard one-year keep-your-nose-clean topic ban suspension. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I sympathise with Arthur Rubin's frustration that the Tea Party movement articles require further work, I think an insufficient amount of time has passed since the original case for it to be in the interests of the project to reduce or remove the sanctions adopted a year ago. I would therefore decline this request, with absolutely no prejudice to considering it again in the future. AGK  [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to consider 1RR, but it would be a standard 1RR, that is, one revert per article per (day|week). I would not be willing to consider a complex system depending on exactly where in the article a revert occurred. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be a reasonable level of support for it, I'll put together a motion changing the topic ban to 1RR/week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd potentially support a 1 week duration 1RR, but I'd like to read over the past evidence a bit more. NativeForeigner Talk 08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a 1-week 1RR or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Arthur Rubin topic ban suspension and 1RR


Proposed:


 * Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.


 * The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.


 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 0RR (or Arthur's 0*RR) and would recommend he at least attempts to hold himself to that. Worm TT( talk ) 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable approach. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth a try. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  04:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators


 * Motion passed. Clerk to close and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility enforcement (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Protonk (talk) at 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 4


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Eric Corbett
 * Drmies


 * Information about amendment request


 * Topic Ban, AN discussion, user talk discussion
 * Per this request, the topic ban on be amended to exclude 's talk page.

Statement by Protonk
I'm filing this request as an uninterested party, as it appears WP:CONEXCEPT forbids Drmies from allowing Eric to speak about RFA on his talk page. As such, the discussion on AN cannot result in any useful outcome.

Statement by Eric Corbett
I wasn't asked about this, and I don't want the terms of my topic ban to be amended. That's all I have to say on the matter. Eric  Corbett  20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Statement by Drmies
Thanks but, since Eric isn't interested, no thanks. Let's file this very quickly. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Yeah, as per Drmies. A well-intentioned consequence of a thread elsewhere but now obviously not appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If the proposed amendment isn't even something Eric is interested in pursuing, I don't see why we'd need to consider it. I'd therefore decline, without prejudice toward Eric making any requests of his own in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Seraphimblade and Salvio. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with my colleagues.  Roger Davies  talk 06:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per everyone above. T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what we need to do here. Decline. AGK  [•] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was recused the last time this was here. I'm not going to agonize over whether I'd still be recused, as my comment would be "I agree with everyone else" anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al (August 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  —Guanaco at 08:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Posted to their talk pages. —Guanaco 08:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Guanaco
Eight years ago, it was decided that I would be ineligible to reapply for adminship. I was 16 years old at the time. I have no particular interest in reapplying in the near future - I haven't actively participated in the Wikipedia community in several years. But this black mark is something that has bothered me, and I hope to rejoin the community at some point with a clean slate. —Guanaco 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
People can change and mature significantly in 8 years, and processes like RFA are also more mature than they were back then so all the benefit from this restriction has been had already. The other two named uses have themselves not edited since 2008 and 2009, so there is little chance of negative interraction with them occurring. I therefore don't see any reason not to allow an application in the normal way if he wants to apply in the future - indeed there is I hope the potential that removing the restriction will spark a desire for this new, mature Guanaco to become an active contributor once more. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Note: For the record, this request aims to modify an existing remedy, so a motion must be voted on and passed (instead of an informal majority opinion). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The motion has reached an absolute majority as of 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC) and will be enacted after 08:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is a long time ago, and I think practice has since changed to generally leave whether to restore tools up to the normal community processes. I'd be inclined to remove the restriction and allow normal reapplication at RfA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that an arbitration sanction does not need to last more than eight years. If one checks the proposed decision page in the case, it is clear that the remedy is meant to mean that Guanaco may not submit another RfA without first getting ArbCom's permission. In light of the passage of time, I believe the consensus here will be that he has our permission, i.e. he may be a candidate at RfA like anyone else if he ever wants to, and the community will decide. If anyone thinks we need a formal motion to effectuate this outcome I will propose one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support removing this restriction as well. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support NativeForeigner Talk 22:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support,  Roger Davies  talk 07:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion
The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

is vacated and replaced with the following:


 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * T. Canens (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 21:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, only via passing a new RfA. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 08:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm TT( talk ) 09:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: American politics (Kentucky Senate election) (September 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Robert McClenon (talk) at 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested # Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics


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




 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

CFredkin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACFredkin&diff=622128624&oldid=622125680

Stevietheman https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStevietheman&diff=622128985&oldid=622004228

NorthBySouthBaranof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=622129194&oldid=621857736

Tiller54 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATiller54&diff=622129504&oldid=622129021

Champaign Supernova https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChampaign_Supernova&diff=622129934&oldid=621440660


 * Information about amendment request

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics
 * Request that Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes be placed under discretionary sanctions until November 2014.

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
Edit-warring has been happening at Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes. (They are the incumbent, seeking re-election, and the opponent in the upcoming election for United States Senate from Kentucky.) The article for Grimes has been placed under full protection.
 * User:Champaign Supernova has had discretionary sanctions explained on his or her talk page, and that I notified all of the recent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I partly disagree with User:Collect that there is nothing unusual on the Mitch McConnell page. Earlier this month, there was, in addition to an insertion not only of a mention of a particular fund-raiser, an insertion of a wildly speculative theory about the reason for the fund-raiser, that involved gross BLP attacks on the industrialist who was supporting McConnell.  While this sort of dirty political attack may not be "unusual", it was very inappropriate in Wikipedia.  It wasn't just a BLP attack on McConnell, but also on the businessman who was supporting him.  It was in my opinion the sort of case where the existing right-left polarization in American politics is likely to affect Wikipedia that the ArbCom had in mind with the general directive.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As to "slippery slope" questions, the ArbCom does not have a crystal ball, but this seems to be precisely the sort of dispute area to which the general directive was oriented. I would hope that the imposition of discretionary sanctions in this case would send a signal to edit warriors in other sub-areas of American politics that they should edit in accordance with the usual rules, both before November 2014 and after November 2014.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I do not see the need to impose DS on thousands of articles covering hundreds or thousands of elections that will be held on 4 November 2014. Second, any RFC concerning DS would not be closed until early October 2014 anyway, and would provide too narrow a window.  Why not only impose discretionary sanctions on articles about politicians and elections in which there is edit-warring or other disruptive editing (such as the Kentucky Senate race)?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Roger Davies says, with regard to this motion and another, that he is not keen on a "piecemeal" approach to discretionary sanctions on American politics. A piecemeal approach is exactly what was stated in WP:ARBAP.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input."
 * First, the ArbCom can reverse Remedy 1, which was specifically crafted because cases involving American politics (with its ugly right-left polarization at the present time) kept requiring arbitration. Maybe, now that the ArbCom sees how it works, it was an honorable experiment that is a failure.  Second, the ArbCom can expand Remedy 1 by extending DS to all of American politics.  I would urge that the ArbCom not take that step, which would overburden arbitration enforcement, whose resources are needed in areas such as WP:ARBIP.  Third, the ArbCom can use Remedy 1, knowing that Roger Davies can take the honorable role of a dissenting judge in voting against "piecemeal" application of discretionary sanctions to subareas of American politics.  Fourth, the ArbCom can accept additional subareas of American politics for full evidentiary hearings, but that is what Remedy 1 was intended to obviate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Details
History for Alison Lundergan Grimes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alison_Lundergan_Grimes&action=history

History for Mitch McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&action=history

Reverting a fund-raiser https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621611111&oldid=621606775

Add endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621652104&oldid=621611111

Remove endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621675442&oldid=621652104

Add information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621676327&oldid=621675442

Remove information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621694341&oldid=621679946

Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes – See repeated claims of censorship, a common indication that POV-pushers object to removal of undue POV

Statement by uninvolved Collect
The McConnell BLP shows no unusual activity for a political BLP, and certainly the editing there does not reach the definition of "edit war." The Grimes BLP has more problems, primarily due to one editor using it to simply add "campaign fluff" (that is, positive statements about a candidate's positions while removing negative opinions sourced as opinions.) That, again, is typical "silly season" editing behaviour which does not reach ArbCom enforcement levels, even though it is to be deprecated. No sign that this is an apt case for "clarification and amendment" at this point at all. If these articles are added, there is literally no end to the number potentially added, and I suggest the ArbCom draw a line here that the matter is insufficient at this point. Collect (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of articles: A bit over seven hundred candidates for House of Representatives (some races have three candidates with articles), about seventy or eighty for Senate,  and about twelve thousand state legislature candidates. If we add notable local elections, add another thousand or so. Add about 250 "major issue articles" and we reach a rough estimate of perhaps fourteen thousand articles to be placed under this category. Not even counting articles about foundations, families, PACs etc. Collect (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@NYB - I perennially suggest such general restrictions on BLPs of political figures internationally for the respective "silly seasons" in various places -- not just the US. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and other English-speaking areas are the primary focus of politically-motivated editors during political campaigns. And I agree this would be a community decision. Collect (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not familiar with what a discretionary sanction is, and I don't understand what this proposal means or how it would affect me. I'm confused by my involvement here because none of the diffs listed above were edits made by me, or reverts of my edits. Is there anything I need to do right now? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:CFredkin
It seems inappropriate for User: Champaign Supernova to be included in the sanctions, if he/she hasn't been accused of objectionable behavior. Or would the sanctions apply to all future editors of the articles mentioned for the time period specified?CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Stevietheman
Despite the apparent declaration, I have not been involved in any edit warring. I protested this declaration here, which strangely came in the form of a welcome message for a 10-year wiki-veteran (me). I don't do edit wars and haven't been blocked for WP:3RR since 2005, and it was just one time. While there has been actual edit warring on the affected pages, there has also been what I think are seemingly biased accusations of "slow-motion edit warring" and "disruptive editing" which I have found to be overzealous. Here's the gist of the problem: People from both political camps are using these articles for electioneering purposes. That's bad, that's un-wiki. But I'd rather see admins use the regular tools at their disposal to settle things down, and especially deal with individuals causing the biggest problems. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, the "Reverting a fund-raiser" item above was me going through the appropriate move of closing an RfC a week after asking if there were any objections to doing so, and removing content agreed to be removed by consensus (4 out of 4) on the talk page. It's pretty outrageous that doing something agreed to by consensus would be included here. I thought these requests were for dealing with egregious behavior. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf
Regarding DS more generally, I think it would be better to allow for DS to be placed on articles about specific political candidates in the n months before an election via a lightweight procedure (say 2 or 3 uninvolved admins at AN or ANI agreeing they would be beneficial) rather than automatically enable them for all political candidates. I do agree though this should be discussed at an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I certainly see the potential for problems to worsen here. I'm minded to grant this request. You can find the full details on what discretionary sanctions are here. In short, they're a way we can allow administrators to quickly address problems in areas where they're very likely to occur, and establish restrictions or remove editors from that topic area if the need arises. Establishing discretionary sanctions over the articles wouldn't change a thing for any editor who isn't engaged in misconduct, and can in any case only apply to misconduct that happens after the sanctions are imposed. It's not an action against any individual, and your inclusion on the request doesn't mean you're accused of any misconduct. The only reason you were probably included is because you edit in the area, so you should have the opportunity to comment on the proposal if you wish to, or (as you did) ask us any questions you might have. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Seraphimblade, I am open in principle to agreeing to this, but is there a potential for a slippery slope here? How many other articles may also need to be placed under such discretionary sanctions if people point to this decision as a precedent? Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Seraphimblade. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could consider DS on articles relating to active candidates for office, in the X months leading up to the election. But I'd want to see this taken to an RfC for community input before taking it any further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hold similar concerns to Carcharoth. Although there does seem to be an issue here, I'm a little concerned that an amendment request will be necessary every time problems crop up in this area. Perhaps it would be wiser to broaden the scope of the sanctions than open the case to amendment requests that may well come back again and again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not really keen on a piecemeal approach. I'd support something along the lines Brad has suggested, or even support authorising DS for the American Politics topic as a whole.  Roger Davies  talk 07:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that this is the second time in quick succession that the American Politics topic area has come before us, I wonder if we should not explore some sort of other way to deal with controversy in this topic area (short of the wholesale application of DS to the entire topic, which I would oppose). I have no bright ideas at the moment but a separate, focussed consultation with the community may resolve this perennial question – better than a series of disparate filings would, at least. AGK  [•] 21:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We didn't impose discretionary on American Politics because it was too broad and nothing's changed there. We did invite these piecemeal options in the way we closed the case - I was hoping for something wider than specific articles though. I do like NYB's suggestion, I'd support something like that. If anyone else has any bright ideas on how to deal with the area, I'd be willing to listen. Worm TT( talk ) 09:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The request is moot, considering the two articles are already subject to DS per WP:NEWBLPBAN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Waldorf education (September 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps at 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected : (specifically its review, )


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1 and 1.1 of the Review, Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education and Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * - who is currently operating under a series of IPv6 addresses


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * As the Pete K has not edited using his account since 2007, there is no good way to log it. I will instead post the link to this in a section in which Pete K has started on my talk page.
 * A13ean notified
 * Hgilbert notified


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education and Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education


 * Details of desired modification
 * Update them to standard topic-bans (so it can be more easily logged under editing restrictions, which will satisfy Pete K's request to remove template messages on article talk pages that states that he is prohibited from editing said articles)

Statement by Penwhale
Back in March 2007, I placed a template on Talk:Waldorf education as part of the requirement when an editor was banned from contributing on articles. The wording at the time allowed Pete K to contribute to the talk page, until a later motion (Remedy 1.1) also limited Pete K's ability to edit the talk page.

Nonetheless, it is unfortunately clear that Pete K may have missed the additional restriction, and recently has taken to both Talk:Waldorf education as well as my talk page to rant about both his inability to edit the talk page as well as the template message on top of the Waldorf education talk page. I believe the best solution would be to modify Remedy 1 and 1.1 of the Review to use the current TBAN wording; this way, the templates could in theory be removed since there will be a centralized place to log the edit restrictions.

As a side note, back in 2012 asked me whether the templates could be removed; I agreed that it could be commented out; however, it was restored before the end of the year by. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by a13ean
Sounds fine to me. I asked if the template could be removed because at the time Pete K had not edited for several years, although he resumed editing shortly thereafter using an IP. a13ean (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Recuse as initiator (and due to certain reasons at my talk page). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Waldorf education: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If standardizing the sanctions to the modern topic ban practices will minimize disruption, I see no reason not to. I'll get a motion together to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Pete K restrictions changed to standard topic ban


Proposed:

Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the Waldorf education case (Pete K banned/Pete K ban clarified) are stricken. In lieu of these remedies, the following restriction is enacted: Pete K is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of Waldorf education, broadly construed. Enforcement of this provision shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Waldorf education case and shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date it is enacted, and if such appeal is unsuccessful no less than one year after the decline of the most recent failed appeal.


 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support


 * 1) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) NativeForeigner Talk 06:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Worm TT( talk ) 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose




 * Abstain




 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: American Politics (Dinesh D'Souza films) (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Casprings (talk) at 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * 1) Remedy 1

-->
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * None are directly affected

No users directly affected. Will leave a notice on the talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request

I request that all Dinesh D'Souza political documentaries come under Discretionary sanctions, as an amendment to the American Politics case. The article and talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her WP:Battleground behavior and a similar dynamic to other cases that deal with American politics.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Discretionary_sanctions_.28general_directive.29

Statement by your Casprings
I think this is the type of situration the decision was designed to deal with. I would also note that similar battleground behavior has been seen in noticeboards, such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her


 * The request only asks for films from one director and one type (political documentary). That isn't particularly expansive.Casprings (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While you may disagree with the original decision, the logic was clearly to be flexible and quickly handle areas under American Politics quickly.  I think that this request is in line with that.  However, if the question is about the original decision, that is another issue.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

'''Evidence (Might take a little while, as I am busy with work right now. However...) ''' Edit Wars over content

1.,,, ,

2. ,,,,
 * I would note that 2. happened in the context of several heated exchanges on several different forms: For example,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#The_Blaze

3., ,,,

4.

Editors Seeing the page as a WP:Battle

1.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictorD7#America_Talk_page

I can and will add more. However, before I do, I wanted to ask: 1. Is this what you are looking for? 2. How much more do you want? Casprings (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

First, life was busy this week so I had little time to add more evidence. Second, if your concern is doing this piecemeal, why not make it political documentaries in federal election years (00,02,04, etc). I have no evidence to back that up currently, but I would be willing to place good money that if you look at those articles you would find significant edit warring.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by VictorD7
Frivolous since activity on the article has been winding down anyway, in accordance with a movie's normal box office cycle. I'm also not sure what the basis for expanding DS to all D'Souza films would be. Seems arbitrarily broad. VictorD7 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

statement by uninvolved Collect
OK -- if we add all films, books, people, events, magazine articles etc. which are remotely connected to "American Politics broadly construed" we likely would have over twenty thousand articles on the list in a flash. Possibly a lot more than that. Draw the line quickly lest this get really out of hand. Collect (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: Note the other request on this same  page at this point wherein some estimate was implicitly asked for. "Broadly construed" is, in my opinion, intrinsically ill-advised as any sort of standard, and this request is sufficiently afield from the original ArbCom evidence and findings as to illustrate that problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: I demur. Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DangerousPanda
Wholly unnecessary bureaucratic filing. The original decision was clear and flexible. If these specific items need to be subjected to the original case, it can happen without such a request for amendment - otherwise, you're going to create bad jurisprudence that requires everything to be vetted in triplicate before it can be subject to sanctions. Bad and poorly-thought-out idea all around. the panda ₯’ 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge
I'm confused. How can we possibly place the entire topic space of American politics under discretionary sanctions?? This is way too broad and overreaching. And what's the point of the discretionary sanctions broadly construed if editors have to ask for an amendment to include an article as part of the the sanctions? Are these discretionary sanctions different from all the other ones? What am I missing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
The entirety of AP is not under DS. Merely there is a policy that DS may be applied to any AP article, without a full case being required to do so. Individual articles or topics still need to be explicitly placed under DS, its just that taht can be now done at WP:ARCA for things under the umbrella of AP. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I think that the Panda and A Quest for Knowledge are mistaken, and Gaijin42 is correct. American politics is not under discretionary sanctions as such. The ArbCom provided an optional procedure for any subarea within American politics to be put under discretionary sanctions if necessary so as to avoid the need for full cases. This request by Casprings is correctly filed. However, he has not established (in my opinion) the need in this specific subarea. Has there been edit-warring or other disruptive editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the absence of further evidence from User:Casprings of disruptive editing, I would be inclined to recommend that the ArbCom decline this request, but would ask Casprings to submit diffs. I have tried to address the comments of User:Roger Davies above, but will restate that Remedy 1 was meant to avoid either the need to overburden Arbitration Enforcement with issues arising from disruptive editing of tens of thousands of articles in the area of American politics (which would result from a blanket imposition of DS) or the need for full arbitration cases in order to impose discretionary sanctions on topic areas.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement by User:Roger Davies appears to propose to be a change to Remedy 1 to replace it with discretionary sanctions for all of American politics. Since Remedy 1 was reviewed by the community with an opportunity for comment before it went into effect, would the large expansion of discretionary sanctions also be reviewed in a somewhat more public place than this board?  What is the thinking of the other arbitrators, who either voted for Remedy 1 or did not vote?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , could you please add more details (specific diffs would be most helpful) as to why you believe these restrictions are needed? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be much more inclined to authorise DS generally, rather than do so piecemeal.  Roger Davies  talk 07:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My thinking here is that authorising DS for a couple of articles at a time is not very good use of either the community's or committee's time. Authorising for the entire sprawling topic will - initially at least - likely place burdens on WP:AE but it should be possible to identify groups of articles within the topic which are troublesome and authorise DS for the sub-sets.  Roger Davies  talk 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's compelling evidence of widespread disruption right across the topic, I'm not averse to authorising DS for all of it. However, identifying sub-sets and authorising just for those might well do the trick. What we probably need to avoid is strings of requests for DS, one or two articles at a time.  Roger Davies  talk 01:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments. Having looked again at the diffs, it does not seem that DS are necessary as actionable misconduct on this kind of scale (if there is any) can easily be dealt with by normal community processes (ie routine admin intervention).  Roger Davies  talk 03:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline at this time as hopefully the edit-warring has passed, and in any event can probably be addressed by ordinary means. If problems persist then if necessary the request can be renewed, with supporting evidence of need. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural decline (stale). AGK  [•] 09:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per AGK, decline as stale. Worm TT( talk ) 10:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Sexology (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; at 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

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

Statement by EvergreenFir
There have been on-and-off discussions on Talk:Radical feminism since April 2014 regarding the acronym "TERF" (which stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminists"). Specifically there is disagreement whether or not the term should be considered a slur and thus not used on talk pages in any other context other than the acronym itself or its use by others vis-a-vis the content of the article. Carolmooredc first posted about it on the RadFem article and on WP:XX in April of this year asking users not to use it. Since then there have been various conversations about it here, here, and here. Most recent discussion (seen in the last two links in the previous sentence) has been around asking the ARBCOM to clarify if this acronym constitutes a slur and would thus be under the purview of the Sexology decision regarding transgender issues.

For clarity, it is my personal view that the acronym does not constitute a slur as it is only viewed as such by those it refers to. It is not the same as other widely recognized slurs such as this and this. I have described my views more clearly in the linked talk page discussions above.

This is my first time at ARBCOM so I apologize if any of this is improperly formatted or otherwise incorrect.

Statement by Tutelary
Hello. This is also my first arbitration case request so please bare with me if I am not keen on all of the formatting and the rules. But, in my view, this dispute is stemming from the fact that one or two editors feel the need to attribute TERF as a slur. I do not share this view, because it's the exact opposite of a slur. It's an acronym describing a subset of Radical feminism that do not accept trans* folk at all. The reasoning on how this is a slur also baffles me. The fact that some people use it in threatening emails? Well, if we attribute that to being a slur, then we'd also open our doors to everything be a slur, because threatening emails will be threatening regardless of the terminology used. We also don't generally involve ourselves into off wiki disputes. It is of point that it is a useful term to describe the group of radical feminists who don't support trans people. That's all it's being used for on the talk, and that's all it will ever be used for it. It falls incredibly short of being a slur anyways, like Evergreen pointed out the two examples; 'nigger' and 'tranny'. Those terms are made to inflame and insult, this one is made to describe a group and their general POV; like Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. I feel that Arbitration clarification request is the acceptable method for clarification because otherwise it's just 'X says its a slur' and 'Y says that it isn't' and generally gets all muddy and filthy. A clarification would be greatly appreciated. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
This is a behaviour issue but solutions may be dependent on whether the acronym is a slur. Both can be decided by the community in general. If something makes another editor feel uncomfortable then I do wish that we drop it, a very easy way to avoid hurt and contention. Doing so seems to be the deeper sense of what civility is. Not an arbcom issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Statement by TParis
As I said in the Manning naming dispute Arbcom case, whether something is a slur or not depends on the  CONTEXT  it is used in - and I'm not sure I can emphasize that enough. We need to quit acting like children on here with no concept of dimension and a two sided construct of language. A word cannot be offensive or nonoffensive. How the word is used can be. That's what matters. Each case must be evaluated on it's individual merits. If someone says "From the TERF perspective, blah blah blah etc etc etc" then that would not be an offensive word. If someone said "The fuck do we care what you think, TERF?" That's offensive. It's simple. CONTEXT!--v/r - TP 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom case not needed - only clue and maturity are required here.

Statement by SPECIFICO
The word refers to a well defined, real-world phenomenon, and it is appropriately-sourced. The talk page controversy arose when one editor vowed to go immediately to Arbcom. This seemed to imply a threat of sanctions against editors who did not accede to her insistence that the word was used as a slur and her demand that it be removed from the article. SPECIFICO talk  23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any editor use the word to describe or address another editor on WP. We're discussing article content only. Any reference to personal attacks should be supported by a link, otherwise let's not confuse things with red herrings and straw women arguments. SPECIFICO talk  01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc
Given the Sexology and Bradley Manning arbitrations, I was seeking clarification on what to do about this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests. (Note: Issue being loose use of it on the web page to refer to specific individuals or groups of radical feminists in an obviously negative fashion, or any potential use against other editors; removing properly sourced information on the term has not been an issue.) Advice there to bring it to ANI seems sensible. I think an intelligent discussion of the WP:RS calling it a slur and a dozen or so examples of how the term is used to insult and threaten women, if shared at WP:ANI, would clarify the issue for the community. However, if it does seem that this issue belongs here, that information can be shared here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what is happening with this clarification. I just saw this revert with the edit summary "Hungerford is a prominent radfem and terf)" and the relevant sentence was "The term is considered a slur by those at whom it is directed, such as Elizabeth Hungerford." Because some arbitrators here seemed to think it only should not be used against editors, perhaps the editor here thought it was OK to use against living persons, including those who have received threats which often use that term. FYI, Hungerford writes about being "gender critical." So some real clarification here needed. Thanks. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, here are other refs calling TERF a slur or an insult (some mention the "gender critical" alternative description):
 * New Yorker “those at whom it is directed consider it a slur.” (This article and term mentioned at the Federalist.com.
 * Village Voice “a label the feminists consider a slur .”
 * American Conservative titles article: "Radical Feminism & The TERF War"
 * National Journal mentions that the female congressional staffer who recently vandalized Wikipedia's Laverne Cox article discussed her dislike of the TERF accusation.
 * Counterpunch: “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting.”(2013) and later described it as one of several “epithets”(2014).
 * Bitch magazine describes a feminist who “considers a slur” the term TERF.
 * A few of the many personal sites where women discuss the term as being a slur and insult against feminists and women who don't support every jot and tittle of the transgender ideology:, , ,.
 * If I see what I think are abuses of WP:BLP, even if no editors are abused, I can bring the issue to the appropriate forum. It's always an educational discussion. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
According to this article in the Huffington Post, TERF refers to feminists who are transphobic or otherwise discriminate against trans-gender people. Thus, TERFs could arguably meet the definition of a hate group. So, the use of this term to refer to Wikipedia editors could very-well violate WP:NPA and it could violate WP:BLP to refer to a living person unless very robustly sourced. However, it does appear to be the term used in general for anti-trans feminists and thus can be used in that context in the applicable articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf
After pursuing the meaning of this through the internet for better than an hour, I have come up with this explanation. Some individuals, who Arnold Schwarzenegger might term as "lady-boys", and who have male chromosomes and male genitals, want to use female toilets. Also women's sleeping areas and women's prisons. The reason for this is that they believe gender is social. They say anyone who does not agree with them is trying to deprive them of their rights, and is filled with "hate and exclusion". They loathe women almost as much as they loathe their own bodies, and as a result of believing they have become women, they spend a lot of time on "men's rights" forums trying to enforce strict gender roles and telling women how to act as women. I'm sure I have missed some nuance of this, and that someone will come by and set me straight on some of the detail, but this is definitely a thing. Anyone who resists strict gender roles is deemed a "terf", as in "kill terfs", which according to this New Yorker article, has become a common internet threat.

The two terms mentioned by the OP as being "widely recognized slurs" are no such thing, but we can certainly add all of these terms to those that do not belong on the talk pages of Wikipedia. That this term was used by an IP, and not a signed-in user, kind of speaks for itself.


 * @TParis: If someone says "From the TERF perspective, blah blah blah etc etc etc" then that would not be an offensive word.  I'm just not buying it that (in a similar construction) it's okay to say "From the faggot perspective..." or "From the slut perspective..." as long as you don't say "Die, faggot" or "Die, slut".  I'm just not buying it; this is offensive. At the very least, this is a gross misrepresentation of someone's views.


 * @Cla68: the Huffington piece cited is not a neutral "article" but a blog opinion piece by Kelsie Brynn Jones, a LGBT activist and movie producer.

Comment by Sceptre
This is an issue way out of any remit of the community or ArbCom, because it's off-wiki drama spilling in, basically, so we can't really make a decision that doesn't affect how we talk about content. That said, from a personal perspective, I tend to view with suspicion anyone who says the phrase "TERF is a slur", because the people who say that tend to have a demonstrable history of transphobia. For example, one of the people cited in the article, Elizabeth Hungerford, wrote a letter to the UN two years ago stating that legislative protections for trans people are "a violation of the human rights of women. What I've noticed, off-wiki, is that people who say the term is a slur never actually say why it's a slur. The term is more comparable to "Tory" or "liberal" than "nigger" or "tranny". On the question of content: transphobic radical feminism is a fringe view even of radical feminism, and anti-transgender perspectives should be given according weight. Sceptre (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'll repeat what I wrote on the talk page. This isn't something ArbCom needs to deal with, in my opinion. If the term TERF is being used as a personal attack, then the person using it in that fashion may, depending on the circumstances, be sanctioned, but I have seen nothing proving that the community is not capable of dealing with this issue. Also, as far as I know, that the expression is a slur is not the current consensus. Dave Giuliano Let's talk about it! 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This really isn't an ArbCom decision, as it's too close to the "content". The community has the ability to make a decision on whether the term is a slur - and I believe TParis has rather got the point, context is key. If the intent is to use it as a slur, then the user should face consequences. If not and offence is being caused, at most a quiet word might be helpful. If the quiet word doesn't help, grit your teeth and move on, remember offence can only be taken, not given. Worm TT( talk ) 09:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, the crux of the problem is not the fact that an acronym is being used, but the use of characterizations such as "trans-exclusionary" and "radical," which may be problematic individually and doubly so in combination. Is there a way of saying what one wants to say without turning up the heat in this manner? I agree this is not an ArbCom matter in and of itself, but I must say that some of the user conduct that underlay the original Sexology case was among the worst I've seen in my 8 years on Wikipedia, and the whole subject goes to the heart of how many people perceive themselves and their identities&mdash;so I'd urge editors in this area to be especially sensitive to one another's feelings and perceptions, especially when this can be done without compromising straightforward communications. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think ArbCom can say "this term is offensive or a personal attack", because what constitutes a PA or incivility is as always a community norm ; my gut feeling is that if the term is contentious, it really shouldn't be used outside of where it is justified (i.e., in the encyclopedic coverage of what sources say on the main page, and in discussion of that content, not contributors, on talk pages.) I think that with the encyclopedia's general guidance on avoiding personal attacks and fostering a collaborative atmosphere using labels is not going to help our aims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the Arbitration Committee to determine whether a specific term is offensive or not (thankfully—that would make for quite a case...) I agree with David that the best approach would be to avoid using contentious terms to refer to other editors, and editors should be cautious when using them in an encyclopedic context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Broadly agreed with GorillaWarfare. It might be necessary to use terms that would normally be offensive when discussing encyclopedic content, but needlessly inflammatory language should be avoided when referring to other editors. Regardless, we can't make a list of words that it would always or never be appropriate to use; context always matters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ArbCom are not subject experts, as my colleagues point out, so we are singularly unqualified to decide this request and I would therefore dismiss it without further action. The community are more than capable of deciding whether a given single phrase is or isn't a personal attack. AGK  [•] 09:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Fram (talk) at 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough
 * Link to relevant decision: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

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

Statement by Fram
Rich Farmbrough has editing restrictions, one stating that he is "indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so." and another that "Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented."

One of the causes of these restrictions was the mass creation of script-generated biographies taken from the Dictionary of National Biography on Wikisource (see [], which was also at the start of my evidence on the RF arbcom case).

Now, RF has created many more similar pages (same method, same problems) at Wikisource, and is actively looking for people to import these to Wikipedia, if possible by bot or script. His script adds very little of value to the existing Wikisource pages: an extremely rudimentary infobox, bolding of the page title, some seemingly random wikilinks (sometimes none at all), birth and death year cats, and (the only thing of potential value IMO) the references used by the DNB article presented in a Wikipedia-style at the end of the article. The pages he creates are taken from all kinds of Wikisource transcriptions, not all verified for correctness (of transcription, this is not about factual correctness).

Evidence of same kind of problems (examples, not exhaustive at all):
 * Largely ruined pages: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/G/e/George Ridout Bingham: compare to Bingham, George Ridout (DNB00). It is quite revealing to open this page in edit mode, to see how the same nonsense appears in the persondata, defaultsort, and so on. See also s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/m/Amelia Matilda Murray: compare to Murray, Amelia Matilda (DNB00); and s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/R/i/Richard Nelson Lee.
 * Introduing errors not found in the Wikisource page: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/D/a/Darlugdach ends with "the people of FrisinGenesi", which should be (and is in the Wikisource page) "the people of Frisingen".
 * Random wikilinks not leading to anything or to the wrong page: s:User:Rich_Farmbrough/DNB/M/a/Mathew_Gibson, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/N/i/Nicholas Lyzarde, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/P/o/Policarpus Taylor (linking to yellowed, which is not really the intended page: the correct yellowed is explained at Admiral (Royal Navy) instead)
 * Layout problems: s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/A/u/Augustus Austen Leigh, s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/L/u/Lucius Ferdinand Hardyman (as a typical small example, when automatically removing a q.v. with his script, he also loses the indication of the end of a sentence: further, he botches some italics and the rest of the article is italicized): compare to s:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 24.djvu/376)

Note also that every page starts with {{subst:Quick infobox|..., but there is no Template:Quick infobox.

As for evidence that he believes these pages are ready to be imported, that he is actively recruiting people to serve as proxies to circumvent his restrictions, and that speed is the defining characteristic for his creations and the manner he uses:
 * s:Category:DNB drafts states since its creation on 16 August 2014: "These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Wikipedia at your peril."
 * His first statement on this, at the DNB project page, stated in part: "I will be creating draft article in my userspace on Wikisource. Anyone can feel free to let me know of issues, or to import the articles to Wikipedia, as they are of course, copyright free and attributed. If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution." (bolding mine)
 * Correcting his drafts on Wikisource is no use
 * Need more articles? You'll get them fast!
 * Many are done (no indication which ones):
 * At another project, he is more cautious, but still advocating the "quick win" of importing his articles (when, as seen above, it would be more useful to simply import the original wikisource page, if people want a page that needs a lot of work still).

I had put a note on the project talk page to raise my concerns. The response speaks volumes. Considering the April 2014 clarification issued by the Committee that "Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.", I would suggest that enough is enough, and simply siteban him for continuously trying to circumvent or violate his restrictions, and for basically not learning anything from his previous mistakes and the discussions and blocks surrounding them. Nothing less, including his last one-year block, seems to make any difference. A siteban won't stop him working on Wikisource, but it will at least stop the active recruitment on Wikipedia of editors to proxy for him. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Addendum: as an indication of the scale of the errors in his drafts: I noted above an article where he had changed Frisingen to FrisinGenesis. This was apparently a remnant of a completely unrelated task, where he auto-expanded some abbreviations to the full Bible Book name. He has now corrected these in his DNB drafts (which is good in itself), which gives an idea of the number of errors (and the fact that my list above was just the tip of the iceberg):
 * Expanding "gen" to "Genesis":
 * Expanding "ez" to "Ezekiel":
 * Changing "john" to "John":
 * Expanding "dan" to "Daniel":

After this was done, he did another run on the articles, changing "thither" to "there". Seven articles were changed, one incorrectly though, as "thither" was part of a title in that one, so the change made the article less correct, and would be hard to detect afterwards. Fram (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I don't care what he does on Wikisource, as long as he doesn't try to find people to import these pages here as a way to circumvent his restrictions here. My links to Wikisource are only used to show that the pages are problematic. My request here is about his actions here. Fram (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I don't really understand your statement about an "alleged import"; I have provided multiple piecees of evidence that Rich wants people to import these to Wikipedia: the category at Wikisource claims that they are ready to be copied into Wikipedia, this link is a section he started, called importing articles, where he specifically states "If you have the rights you might consider an export-import solution.", and elsewhere he also promotes bringing his drafts to Wikipedia as a "quick win". So it is obvious that he has already tried to "crowdsource" his automation, as you put it, and that he wants (or certainly wanted) these to be imported swiftly and preferably en masse. That no one so far has acted upon this (as far as I know) doesn't mean that he hasn't tried to breach the sanctions in this way, only that he was unsuccessful. The "proxying", brought up by others, is a red herring in that regard, as I am not seeking any sanctions against other editors, even if someone would have imported one of these. This request is only about the behaviour of Rich Farmbrough. He now claims that "I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow."; I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights". I hope that, contrary to earlier ArbCom proceedings, he will actually explain what he intended, and not simply dismiss evidence without any justification for it. Note also this: "As to importing, of course they would not be bulk imported to article space, but to my user namespace by default, or the project namespace by choice, which would create no issues for anyone, except to make mass updating difficult." This not only contradicts his advice to the gender project, but also would still violate his restrictions on mass creating articles, which clearly states that he is "indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace". Fram (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

About Rich Farmbroughs comment (or "preliminary statement"). Most seems rather irrelevant, I'll stick to a few points.
 * "one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies," is the usual ignoration of his own errors, which are much more fundamental than "typographical inaccuracies", as evidenced above. This blindness to the problems with his scripts and its results, and the lack of control of the results of his script runs, are the root cause of the problems and restrictions. Furthermore, these are "off-site edits" made with the explicit goal to get them on-site, not something that would remain off-site.
 * "The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used." The import function is not even available to copy pages from Wikisource, see e.g. Requests for page importation.
 * "No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed." But it clearly has been asked. No one has taken up the proxying, but that is not under discussion here. The problem is that you were looking for proxy editors to get your deficient script-created pages on Wikipedia, since you are restricted from doing so yourself. You have not explained how this is not an attemmpt to get around your restriction by recruiting others.
 * "To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki." No, to present your already banned script-created contributions to these projects as if they are positive, welcome contributions is unkind and unproductive. You could have just pointed e.g. the gender group to Wikisource, and indicated that there are a lot of DNB entries there that have been proofread, which can be copied over and turned into articles with some work. You could have provided them with a list on Wikisource of such pages, I wouldn't care and it would in no way violate your retrictions if you had done that. But you just had to use your already condemned scripts there and invite people to use your versions (no matter if they started from proofread pages or not, no matter if they introduced errors not in the original Wikisource page or not). And that is the problem and the reason I filed this. Fram (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade. I don't really get this, you seem to be basically syaing that if someone has restrictions here, they are free to try to circumvent them and find other editors to help them continue their problematic editing? Doesn't that make the restrictions rather toothless? Fram (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Both. Restrictions are not "don't do this unless your edits are good", they are "don't do this"; but in this case, as I presented in my opening statement, the edits still present the same or very similar problems as the earlier ones had, so I don't believe using them would be a net benefit either (I don't think using the RF versions will make it any faster to present decent articles compared to starting from the standard Wikisource pages, and the chances are considerable that they will introduce additional errors not present in those Wikisource pages, like in some of the examples above). Fram (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
In the interests of collegial working, and to save everyone's time, I would appreciate guidance form the Committee, as to whether they would like a point-by-point commentary on the above, a general statement, or, indeed, whether it is not worth responding to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

I have drafted a statement which I will post later tonight or tomorrow, once I have removed or reduced those points that Kim has already made more ably than I.

I will just point out, for the record this absurd statement of Fram's, which I had missed amongst the cruft (I may later incorporate it into my general statement:

This is quite simply a chimera. I have never suggested using a bot or script to import the items, and indeed I would strongly disagree with doing that en masse, as it would break the proposed workflow.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Preliminary statement
1. Scope I address only the substantive point made relating to English Wikipedia. While it is doubtless flattering to have one's off-site edits microscopically examined for typographical inaccuracies, it is not something I will address here, except to point out that I had explicitly invited Fram to report and discuss them, if he should desire, as indicated at WP:DNB.

2. History 2. a) "The Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) is a standard work of reference on notable figures from British history" and "many of the longer entries are still highly regarded", it covers tens of thousands of people from legendary figures from the mists of time, up to the the early years of the twentieth century, when the supplementary volumes are taken into account. Due to the publication dates the text is in the public domain.  These texts, therefore, form a good potential starting point for Wikipedia articles.  Over the last decade a small group of dedicated volunteers, lead by the redoubtable Charles Matthews have been working on creating a proofread version of the DNB on Wikisource with the express aim (although not the sole aim) of having the material available for Wikipedia. In parallel a very great number of Wikipedia articles have been created for the same subjects, sometimes based upon the DNB material, sometimes partially so, and sometimes from completely different sources (although these are often derived in whole or part from DNB).

A WikiProject DNB was set up on the 10th of September 2010, I joined on the 14th. The DNB project exists solely to bring information, sometimes in the form of new articles, from the DNB into WP. It is a child project of WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles WikiProject DNB was broadly supportive of the previous automated creation of drafts on WP.

[While the best drafts may form tolerable articles, considerable manual work is required to most of them, and not just on the article. The links to regiments or battles, for example, may require ancillary articles to be created, or at the very least redirects or disambiguation pages. The draft merely removes tedious and repetitive workload.]

2. b) The "Gender Gap Taskforce" is a taskforce of the Sytemic Bias WikiProject, set up on the 13th of May 2013. It is active on other aspects of systemic gender bias than the Gender Gap, despite its name, for example Afd, categories and missing articles. I have been active there since the 4th of August, shortly after the taskforce saw a resurgence in activity, and had commented elsewhere on the subject of main discussion of 2013, category "ghettoization".  I have previously produced lists of missing articles (and provided other, mainly technical, assistance) the Women's History project.  I have also made a list of 187 women environmentalists (that I cannot share with fellow Wikipedians, except by providing a link to the off-wiki list), and have slowly been creating articles on notable women leaders form Wesleyan movements.

3. Proposed use There was never any suggestion of automated import of these drafts as I have outlined above. You can clearly see that a 'manual process is suggested at the Gender Gap Taskforce, that implies individual articles need to be created and worked upon.

The advantage of using the import function, as I understand it, is that it allows attribution to be maintained, and a consistent edit summary of the import itself is used. I made it clear, when Fram raised the issue of import that bulk importing would "make mass updating difficult." Had Fram the slightest concept of how the process of continual improvement works, he would have realised that bulk import by any means is anathema to my goals, at least while I am unable to work effectively upon the English Wikipedia.

Moreover it is clear that the drafts are not ready for article space as noticed to the DNB project, so any bulk import there would be a bad idea.

4. Warnings given

4. a. ''Caveat: ... You remain responsible for your own edits. ''

4. b. These pages are drafts ready to be copied into Wikipedia at your peril.

Note that the WikiProject DNB members tend to be experienced editors who know that they are responsible for their own edits.

Members of both projects clearly have their own reason to create these articles. (See, Bruning, Kim: 2014)

5. Conclusions No proxy editing is taking place here, and none has been proposed. Assistance is being offered to two projects I am already involved with, and which have aims in line with my own: to wit, creating missing articles on notable women, adding missing articles on notable Britons. To keep these projects in the dark about a possible resource would be unkind, unproductive and unwiki.

No proxy automation is taking place either, this is a trivial lemma.

6. Quotations It is, though, instructive to note the previous comments of a couple of current arbitrators:


 * "[N]othing prevents other botops from taking over Rich's bots, provided that they comply with all relevant policies and guidelines," T. Canens


 * "You'll also be delighted to hear that the proposed remedies enable him to give you exactly the help you seek by way of planning the logisitics [sic], working up the code, liaising with bot owners and so on." Roger Davies


 * "Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility..." Worm That Turned

7. Colophon It has been expressed to me by an Arbitrator that, despite the findings not saying anything about it, the root issue was the speed of editing. It is already perverse, then, that I was blocked for a year for mistyping a single character manually. It would be even odder if any sanction were considered for precisely zero edits

On this note if any Arbitrator knows of any other hidden reasons for sanctions, I would be most grateful to be appraised of them.

Response to Fram's third set of comments
I wonder how he reconciles this with his preferred "export-import solution" for someone with "the rights".


 * Where does he get preferred from? Just makes it up as he goes along I suppose.

@Robert McClenon
I provided the Gender Gap Taskforce with two links, one to a list of red-linked articles and their corresponding DNB pages on wikisource, and one (IIRC) to a category of drafts.

Anyone who wishes may take the text of the Wikisource article, or of a draft, or they may retype the text from the image of the DNB page, or they may re-write it in their own words.

If they use the draft (which is in my userspace) they will, in general, have less work to do than if they if the Wikisource page. I will be happy whichever they use.

As to the particulars, the intention is to improve the conversion process continually, this is known as kaizen. If an improvement to the process is made it will be shared by all new and existing drafts. Moreover source changes will also be reflected to existing drafts.

If they try to polish a draft in my userspace in Wikisource, and it were to be overwritten, their changes would not be lost, but would be available in history. Nonetheless this is probably a bad idea. It would be better to polish it on Wikipedia. They can do this, for example, in their own userspace, in Draft space or at AFC. They could also do it under the WP:DNB project space, or indeed in article space, provided they are not going to abandon a particularly problematic draft. Clearly they would do this if they worked from the Wikisource article or the images. So I don't think I am placing any large manual burden on anyone, rather removing a manual burden.

@AGK
Anyone who wants to automatically import these drafts will need to propose a BRFA, which includes showing community consensus, per WP:BOTPOL. If the community consensus is to bulk import the pages, then I would not wish to stand against it, even though I don't think it is currently appropriate. The committee may have a different view of community consensus, of course.

@WTT
I had not realised these fine distinctions were that important. However the prohibition on automation is recorded, as far as I know, as an "Editing restriction" and does not ascend to the lofty height of a "Topic ban".

Statement by Wbm1058
No jurisdiction. Per Arbitration, This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Wikipedia. See Arbitration Committee for other committees. Apparently Wikinews has a committee, but Wikisource does not. If you don't like what Rich is doing there, or in his own user space (which I'd assume was intended for debugging), then go to the Foundation and ask for an Office Action. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kim Bruning
Quick point of policy: Just pointing out that WP:PROXYING fails on both forks:
 * 1) "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor" . Rich is currently not banned.  (block expired in march AFAICT)
 * 2) "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.". Which passes if an editor checks before submission to en.wp.

Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.

Further, I guess Fram reads "are ready to be imported at your peril" opposite from me. (I read it as "Don't do it that way. (yet)").

Together with the fact that this is on ws instead of wp I'm not sure there's a case here for arbcom per-se. (Though Fram's frustration is quite understandable here.)

I know the tendency these days is to delete rather than improve, and ABF over AGF, but this is still wikipedia. :-)

You know, Rich can Code, and Fran knows their quality control. Could we establish procedures where Fram can cooperate with Rich to generate something that both would agree was useful? The large benefit to wikipedia if these folks could work together is obvious, imao. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Worm That Turned, Sure! Hence, anticipating that line of argument: "Even if we bend #1 to also apply to editing restrictions, #2 still applies full force.".
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Worm That Turned <3 :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions and Comments by Robert McClenon
Fram has stated that many of the articles are "broken". I have not read the articles in detail, but would like to ask whether Fram's comments, such as that abbreviations for books of the Bible have been replaced with the names of the books, are valid. Is that criticism correct? If the criticism is correct, are the articles in Wikisource really ready to be pulled into Wikipedia, or will it be necessary for those copying the articles to make non-trivial edits? If, in your opinion, the articles are ready for Wikipedia, how is Fram mistaken? Why have you cautioned not to edit the articles in Wikisource? Am I correct in assuming that you are using a script in Wikisource? In that case, by overwriting and "rebreaking" any broken features in the script, it appears that you are proposing to place a large manual burden on Wikipedia editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from NE Ent
If RF does something, and Fram doesn't obsess over it, is it really disruptive? This we have jurisdiction over anything in the universe that might affect Wikipedia slope ya'll seem to be on recently should stop, because it diminishes the credibility of the commitee (i.e. good luck banning Erik Möller).

RF was banned from automation because he demonstrated a lack of judgement in using automation to affect articles. If he automates off-en-wp, there is no violation. If the introduction of the work product of those automations by another editor diminishes the encyclopedia, the responsibility lies on the editor who did the edit, not RF.

If the committee is going to establish a vicarious liability policy in that an editor who encourages another editor to do something is as responsible for the one who does it … please desysop Fram for encouraging [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=585442001] the behavior of Kafziel Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel whom ya'll desysoped. No, that's not a serious request, it's a Reductio ad absurdum argument for the principle editors are only responsible for their own behavior, not what others do. NE Ent 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
I have met Rich in real life many times, we have had great chats, as you might guess this includes our different experiences with Arbcom, and he is a fellow supporter of Wikimedia LGBT+. I expect the outcome here to be "I don't see anything that the committee should do", as others have highlighted. If Rich wants to play around with Wikipedia content away from Wikipedia, meh, this is something that is actually a good thing as if others are going to reuse his work to improve Wikipedia contents that's their editorial judgement, not Rich's.

The Wikipedia community has seen 2 years of Rich being publicly pilloried for his use of automation, or more accurately, even the appearance of automation such as simple cut & paste editing, has become a reason for eye-watering year long blocks. This has become a death of a thousand cuts, how about putting aside the punishment hat and instead talk realistic solutions that give Rich a way to regain his good standing as a Wikipedia editor, and we can all benefit from his significant talents and interest in writing better tools for our editors?

Those members of Arbcom who have not had a chance to meet Rich and discuss his passion for the English Wikipedia, I strongly encourage to take up the offer of a Skype call. Nobody can possibly doubt his good intentions, his enthusiasm for open knowledge and his great potential for helping to deliver on our shared mission. He is exactly the sort of long term Wikipedian you want to encourage.

Let's move on please. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I note that Fram's statement is currently 1,395 words long and may well be added to. I have only briefly skimmed the text as a result.

Statement by PBS
As one of two editors who did most of the systematic clean-up of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2 in October–December 2011, I do not share all of Fram's concerns. At the time I was of the opinion that it was better to modify the text and fix the attribution than it was to delete the articles. I was disappointed at the number of editors who participated in the clean up, and because the pages had been published I felt a responsibility to clean them up (even thought I wanted to be editing other pages), and so resented RF for placing that extra burden on the DNB project.

If articles are manually ported by editors from wherever RF has placed them, those editors have three choices: The decision and the responsibility for making sure that the text meets Wikipedia content policies guidelines must rest on the editor who chooses to import the text. One editor building on the efforts of another is the Wikipedia way. I suspect, given the lack of participation if fixing the problems in the 100+ pages in 2011 when RF generated similar content, that the speed at which the articles he creates are copied across to Wikipedia will occur far more slowly than RF hopes it will happen.
 * to use the original DNB source,
 * to use RF's modifications
 * or not to do it at all.

To facilitate monitoring the ports I would suggest that an audit page is kept consisting of:
 * Date start, Date end, porting editor, Wikipedia page(s) affected, notes on the port

I think Fram needs to question whether Fram is opposing this initiative by RF, because Fram believes that RF is gaming the system and should not be allowed to do so (whether or not the outcome of RF's initiative will be a net benefit to the Wikipedia project); or whether Fram's motives are because Fram believes that this initiative will inevitably harm the project and so should be strangled at birth.

I think on balance it should be a benefit to the project, but it largely depends on the the editing care of any editors who decide to import the text and their taking responsibility for doing so. Therefore I would suggest that the project is allowed to go ahead with the understanding that it can be reviewed at any time.

-- PBS (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
It would be helpful if the committee could help clarify at what point Fram's reporting of Rich becomes abusive and/or excessive. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by bystander Mangoe
If Rich were to persuade someone to import en masse the material he has generated off-site, there would be something to deal with. As it is, one-by-one article creations don't represent the same sort of problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I reject the point that this is out of jurisdiction, because the purpose of the pages in question appears to be an import into Wikipedia. If this is not the case, urgent clarification is requested. Otherwise, I would welcome a statement from Rich Farmbrough; in answer to his question, detail is welcome and, I think, important. If there is no meaningful defence against the allegation that Rich intends to introduce a large number of automatically-processed stubs, statements should focus with some urgency on how this is not – as it would then appear to be – another violation of the automation prohibition that was issued on a "last chance" basis. AGK  [•] 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If Rich assures us that the alleged import in question will not take place, I do not see much else for us to do. I would advise him not to attempt to "crowdsource" his automation, which would be a violation in spirit of his restriction, but until the committee receives evidence that such a thing is taking place, I do not see that we have anything to consider in this complaint. Perhaps can correct me before I finalise my opinion on this request?  AGK  [•] 22:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to Rich Farmbrough's question, I do believe a statement from him is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not have jurisdiction over Wikisource or any other project but the English Wikipedia, but it has long since been established that we have jurisdiction over off-wiki conduct when it is undertaken with the purpose or outcome of affecting the English Wikipedia. A banned editor lobbying for others to circumvent the ban would fall squarely within that, so Rich, yes, a statement addressing that accusation is much needed from you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with AGK, with the further clarifications here, I don't see that any action is required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, proxying. Our policies on the matter are quite clear and I'm sure no one ever questions them. In any case - if Rich is "making a resource available for people" and the people are willing to take responsibility for the edits - I don't see anything that the committee should do here, we have no powers that would change the matter. I would certainly take into account that Rich has circumvented his topic ban through using another project should he ever request his topic ban be removed. Worm TT( talk ) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Kim Bruning - Rich is banned, not site banned, but topic banned - where the topic is a meta topic of "automated editing" and is covered by the WP:Banning policy. Worm TT( talk ) 13:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Kim Bruning, indeed - hence my previous comment "I don't see anything that the committee should do here" Worm TT( talk ) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rich, I stand corrected. Worm TT( talk ) 09:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's not much for us to do here. What he may or may not do at Wikisource is up to the Wikisource community to decide, and I don't think his discussion of importing the text to Wikipedia is something we should act upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Sexology (TParis) (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  v/r - TP at 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264

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

Statement by TParis

 * I would like to know if Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264 is a broad enough consensus to meet the threshold listed at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions #2 requiring a consensus at the administrator's noticeboard ("AN") to have the decision by Sandstein to list me as sanctioned with a warning under this case overturned.--v/r - TP 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Righteo - I didn't feel comfortable calling a consensus of four editors a consensus that could uncontroversially overrule an Arbcom sanction/warning, even as an enforcement action and not as part of a case, and I wasn't prepared to argue that such a precedent should be set either way.--v/r - TP 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arbcom: Regarding Sandstein's question of where to log violations of WP:AC/DS, I am not at all opposed to being listed in a log if one were to be created for it specifically. I only oppose where it is logged currently.--v/r - TP 04:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Arbcom: Hey folks, I've already had an ANI thread stall on me, could we please get a resolution out of this?--v/r - TP 01:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The four editors who commented in that section supported TParis's appeal, which in most Wikipedia discussions would constitute a consensus in favor of their position. But I don't really have any basis on which to form an opinion one way or the other about whether they were uninvolved editors (for whichever meaning of "uninvolved" the Committee may have intended), or whether this relatively limited degree of participation constitutes the "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved participants required to sustain an appeal. On the merits, despite the disagreement of these other editors, I remain of the view that an editor who misbehaves in an AE discussion concerning a topic covered by discretionary sanctions is, themselves, subject to the discretionary sanctions authorized for that topic area, and that the warning at issue (meant as the mildest possible sanction, and not to be confused with a no-longer-loggable alert) was therefore correctly logged. Moreover, to the extent that the sanction was also in application of WP:AC/DS, this case raises the question of whether and where sanctions authorized by that provision should be logged. While I don't have strong feelings about any of these questions, some clarification with respect to any of them might be helpful for future cases.  Sandstein  19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio giuliano: I appreciate the feedback. In this case, though, I consider that my action was appropriate to the misconduct at issue. Indeed, a brief block might have been preferable, also in view of the fact that TParis is an administrator, about the conduct of which the community tends to have higher, not lower, expectations. Of course, such appreciations are a question of individual judgment and temperament, and it is therefore to be expected that different people will come to different conclusions. But the mere fact that my appreciation of the situation doesn't match yours doesn't mean that I didn't exercise my best judgment and common sense. If the ArbCom delegates discretionary sanctions authority to individual administrators, it must accept that they will come to conclusions that may differ from those of individual arbitrators in any given case. Otherwise you'd be better off doing the job yourselves.  Sandstein   15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad: If the Arbitration Committee concludes that TParis's appeal to AN was successful, or if the Committee itself undoes the warning on appeal, then I certainly accept that. But as I have said, I am of the view that the warning was appropriate. Therefore I don't quite understand what it is that you would like me to do.  Sandstein   13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Arbcom, please don't create any new procedures or any new logs for decorum warnings. The existing ones are working. TParis has argued that the warning to him was logged in the wrong place, but I disagree. If there was to be a warning at all under WP:AC/DS, surely it should be added to the log of whatever Arbcom case the complaint was brought under. In my opinion Arbcom should treat this request from TParis as though it was an arbitration enforcement appeal. On that basis, Arbcom has jurisdiction to grant the request if it wants to (without being worried that it is interfering with the closure of the AN thread he filed). Another way to handle this would have been for TParis to file an arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:AE. If that had been done, I'd probably vote to grant the appeal and remove the logged warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Action by NE Ent
Per WP:IAR and the obvious trend here I've removed the warning on the sexology [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSexology&diff=627293518&oldid=623885711]. NE Ent 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Sandstein has been brought before ArbCom numerous times over the years for misguided and/or heavy-handed actions in areas subject to discretionary sanctions with this just being the latest incident. I think it would be nice if the Arbs would show some official displeasure with his conduct. At the very least he should be advised or instructed to be more judicious and respectful when carrying out his admin duties in this area. Perhaps you can include it in a motion to grant the appeal by TParis.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Sexology (TParis): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I have reviewed the discussion on the noticeboard, including Sandstein's detailed comments there. On the substance of the request, while I understand Sandstein's technical points, on balance I fully agree with TParis that it is unreasonable and misleading for him to be listed as a DS-warned party under either the Manning decision and/or the Sexology decision. (This obviously doesn't mean I condone calling editors "morons," and I'm glad TParis understands that the term was inappropriate.) I also agree with TParis that the discussion on AN has reached a consensus in his favor on this issue. ¶ As a matter of DS procedure, the appeal-to-AN alternative would ordinarily call for assessment of consensus on the noticeboard itself by an uninvolved administrator, rather than by the Committee. However, due to a lull in the AN discussion it aged off the active AN board and into the archive, and I think it would be excessively wikibureaucratic to insist that the thread be pulled from the archive back onto AN so that an administrator can close it with the obvious result. ¶ With respect to Sandstein's inquiry concerning whether 4 editors is sufficient for consensus, I would say it depends on what is being discussed. If the subject of the discussion were a site-ban, participation by 4 editors would be woefully insufficient. In this instance, though, given the limited nature of the sanction and the fact that everyone who wanted to discuss it had an opportunity to do so, I believe there is sufficient basis for an outcome&mdash;particularly when the alternative would not be to declare the appeal unsuccessful, but to reopen the discussion in either the same or a different venue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need to create a new logging location; we should just drop the warning that was given, as being unnecessary. I would appreciate if Sandstein would just accept this outcome so we can close this request out, as otherwise, unnecessary additional time will be spent on what everyone seems to agree is a very minor matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with Sandstein that edits to an AE thread are covered by the underlying discretionary sanctions. However, and I find myself repeating this, the administrators manning the AE noticeboard need to use their best judgment and common sense when determing what the most appropriate course of action is in any given case. Here, TParis' use of the word "morons" was inappropriate; redacting the insult was a good idea as was leaving a note on his talk page, urging him to be more civil. What was an overreaction was making it a big deal, by logging the warning on the relevant case page like a discretionary sanction. After all, this was an isolated case of incivility and was not part of a pattern at least, from my experience. Those who commented during the AN discussion reached the correct conclusion, in my opinion; and, while 4 people is a bit on the low side for these things, I agree with Brad that for the purpose of determining the number of people required to overturn a sanction, its severity should be taken into account (also, those commenting were, if I'm not mistaken, entirely uninvolved, which partly makes up for their small number). So, for all these reasons, I think the warning should be removed from the log. Also, in my personal capacity, I'd like renew my request to Sandstein to please be less heavy-handed in future and to first consider talking to the other editor as a person, instead of reaching immediately for his DS quiver.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In light of the consensus on AN and that of the arbs who have commented, I have just removed the log entry. Unless one of my colleagues disagrees, I'd say this can be archived now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I also don't endorse the "morons" comment, I agree with Salvio and Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Sandstein's warning was within the letter of the proverbial law, I'm not sure it was an ideal course of actions, per those above. Removal from the log would likely be ideal. In this case although a block would also have likely been within the letter, I don't think it would bevery consistent with the general actions taken against users/administrators that use such language, especially because of his willingness to redact. NativeForeigner Talk 06:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I wrote before, but clearly not. TParis, your comment was inappropriate - especially so in the forum it was written. It's hard enough to enforce arbitration decisions, without having to worry about decorum issues. That said, I don't believe it needed a formal warning and it certainly shouldn't be logged there. I don't see that the warning needed to be "logged" at all - in future, if an admin is being troublesome at AE, take to Arbcom - who can have a quiet word. At any rate, I believe the warning should be removed, and it appears that the community consensus (though of a small number of editors) agrees with that. Worm TT( talk ) 07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems a strange interpretation, in any event, to call a warning a "sanction". I would therefore eliminate this sanction from the log in question, then close this request. AGK  [•] 09:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf) (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:


 * 

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
[] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of [] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too [] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure User:Neotarf would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that my statement wasn't far off from what the actual remedy was and that the interpetation is shared by others. I'm curious User:NativeForeigner was this the edit you are supporting from WTT []? If the clarification is such that people willfully using the wrong pronoun is wrong then the committee should really address the Tutelary situation with all involved. The behaviors are disturbing if allegations are true and if not User:Tutelary is undergoing harassment that appears on the surface at least being abetted by this committee, various admin and User:Jimbo Wales. Again let me make it clear we can ignore the Neotarf part of this but this committee has an issue to handle it appears, I applaud the arbs that had the integrity to at least look at the question on it's merits and I thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Worm's original comment, not the followup gender comments. I'll try to check that aspect tomorrow. NativeForeigner Talk 08:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carolmooredc
Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:
 * The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

The problem is the phrase "any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." sounds to some like it includes editors, despite the previous mention of articles.

Hell in a Bucket is not the only person to have misread this. I have been threatened with sanctions for once accidentally and once unknowingly calling two different transgender editors "he". I've been repeatedly badgered by someone (whether female or transgender, I'm not sure) who I admitted I only thought was a "he" but who finally admitted she was a "she", but doesn't advertise the fact. I guess I should ask her if that's what has her so ticked off. In fact I just noticed that this conversation - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales - is mostly about people being not sure if it was effrontery to use he about an editor on a talk page. (This a sub-thread of another Hell in a Bucket posting on the topic.) Check it out.

I sure would like to see it made much clearer you are talking only about article space and not just article space. Anything that makes it a bit clearer in the actual section (bolding the word article or writing "only article", for example) would be a big help. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Sexology and Manning cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. AGK  [•] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the AE thread. No action required here. Worm TT( talk ) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that we have similar clarifications on two different topics at the same time. I, too, understood that the discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns would apply to editors and talk pages. It's more difficult for administrators to make a decision, and I wouldn't expect everyone to know what gender other people are. However, if an editor is wilfully and knowingly using the incorrect pronouns, I'd expect that to be covered. Worm TT( talk ) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well, well count me in among those who thought that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An accidental slip-up on gender pronouns is certainly not cause for sanction. This is especially true given that many usernames, my own included, are essentially androgynous. On the other hand, if someone explicitly states "I see you referred to me as Y, I am actually X" and another editor keeps referring to them as "Y" to poke at them, that is an unacceptable personal attack (whether that other editor is transgender or not). With the ambiguity present, I don't disagree with the findings of the AE thread, but if we're allowing editors to continue to refer to others by gender pronouns they explicitly have said they don't identify as, we shouldn't. The safest route, I generally find, is just to use the singular they unless one knows for certain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Concurring with Brad, AGK, Worm. NativeForeigner Talk 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) at 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

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

Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage
My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.

Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.

It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with Sandstein to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.

Statement by Sandstein
The reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all articles relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the topic of pseudoscience" or similar.  Sandstein   18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio giuliano's opinion in opposition to the proposed motion. The wording "authorized for pages related to ..." would exclude edits about the subject on pages that are not about the subject, such as noticeboards or list articles. This conflicts with the DS procedure which talks about "topics" or "topic areas", but would take precedence over it as a newer decision. The wording should be reconsidered.  Sandstein   21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf re motion
With the exception of the Falun Gong case, these are all simple clarifications that do not affect the scope of the remedies' intent and I struggle to think of any way they could be controversial.

The Falun Gong case is slightly different, in that it changes from affecting articles that are "closely related" to pages "related [...], broadly construed". I don't know if this broadening of the scope is either significant or relevant? There are no recent sanctions listed on the case page, but that's the extent of my knowledge of the current state of the topic area. The change is probably immaterial but arbs should be aware that it is a change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Changing (ex post facto) rulings by motion is a bad idea. There should be wider community input and and RFC about such matters.

Why? Because the Arbitration process is set up to at least have an appearance of inviting community input. Using motions to change the results subverts the community. Arguably amendment of one ruling through motions though this has always seemed a clunky and ill-conceived technique) where at least the motion is sufficiently similar to the amendment requested is reasonable. But essentially the use of motions outside a very limited scope in terms of the Arbitration Committee's power to make changes to purely procedural aspects of the arbitration process itself is ulta vires.

Moreover in this case the amendment request pertains to the "Pseudoscience" case, and, one assumes, that at least the parties to the case, and those under warnings within the last 12 months have been advised that an amendment has been tabled (or in American parlance, proposed). Those affected by the other eleven cases, which the motion proposed to change, have presumably not been notified, so no due process has been followed. (Again for American members, there are US laws relating to quasi-judicial processes, which may be relevant, no doubt NYB can advise.)

However if the committee is determined on this path, the phraseology of the motion might at least repay a little careful thought. For example do we really want to apply discretionary sanctions to a user over a page they are developing in their user-space? Might we, perhaps, wish to include the Pseudoscience ruling itself in the motion?

I refer the committee to the a previous example where the then committee instructed that administrators must place a "Arbitration sanctions" template on all talk pages of articles related to, I think it was, "Abortion, broadly construed", and only when I had scoped this task and reported on the enormity and non-necessity of it did they reword it to making the placing of the sanction notice optional. (They also had no business attempting to compel administrators to perform actions.) It is better, where possible to get these things right the first time.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Your interpretation is correct. Per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. this section. As a result, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, [discretionary sanctions apply to] all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear. Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace. Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles only". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. Worm TT( talk ) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The intention was to cover everything related regardless of namespace. I think a motion to clarify this won't hurt. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support a motion that would resolve the ambiguity here. AGK  [•] 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also support a simple motion correcting the language to be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion
This motion amends the wording of existing discretionary sanction remedies to make clear that they apply to all pages related to the topic, regardless of namespace.

1) The following remedies are amended by striking the word "articles" and inserting the word "pages" in its place:
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
 * Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
 * Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

2) Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is amended to read as follows:

3) Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is amended to read as follows:

4) Clause (b) of Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong is amended to read as follows:

Any existing sanctions and restrictions remain in force and are not affected by this motion.


 * Support
 * T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reasons discussed above. Thryduulf's observation is well-taken, but I don't see it as a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Salvio's concerns, but believe this clarifies it sufficiently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that "edits" is the right word at all, pages seems more appropriate to me. Worm TT( talk ) 08:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Worm on the diction here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it shouldn't be problematic. Thank you for the comment Thryduulf, I think that aspect would have escaped me had you not noted it. However, I think for our purposes it's almost immaterial. NativeForeigner Talk 05:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * The various provisions should be amended to read "edits" (and not only pages) instead of articles. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators

Amendment request: Infoboxes (October 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Francis Schonken (talk) at 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 3.2 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Gerda Arendt (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
 * "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted... They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." doesn't work very well. It leads to illogical split-offs, for the purpose of creation of infoboxes, with a lot of cleanup left to others. Let me take you step by step through an example:
 * BWV 243 and BWV 243a used to be on a single page named Magnificat (Bach)
 * (Gerda) preparing split (moving existing Magnificat article to BWV 243)
 * (Gerda) Starting BWV 243a article with infobox.
 * (Gerda) in BWV 243a article adding a lot of content with references to sources that only speak about BWV 243.
 * (Francis) cleaning up on BWV 243a and moving BWV 243 related content to BWV 243
 * (Gerda) speaking about "merg(ing) the (BWV 243 and BWV 243a) articles (back) to Magnificat (Bach), or separate the movements to a third (i.e. splitting one more off)", suggesting she gets more recognition for her work that is now in the other article while not wanting to contribute to that article
 * (Francis) obliging and working out the "partial inclusion" solution with updates of the content appearing in the BWV 243 article while technically only editing the BWV 243a article.  - while this involved removing refs to sources not related to the BWV 243a article, putting up an original research template.
 * Despite promises by Gerda she has not found time to add references for the description in the BWV 243a article (which was well-referenced as long as it was in the BWV 243 article)

Statement by Francis Schonken
See step-by-step above: --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of unnecessary counterproductive work not tailored on the optimal path to improve the encyclopedia, but jumping through hoops (also by those not by far ever involved in the infobox case) in order to have an infobox without infringing the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case.
 * What I'd propose would more look like Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) or Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 on an article-by-article base, where once there is consensus on yes-or-no an infobox for the concerned article it doesn't matter who adds or removes it. Also, no longer a who created the article "owns" the infobox decision reasoning, which in the long run is only counterproductive.
 * So I'd move to replace the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case by "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes ; restoring an infobox that has been deleted ; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create ."
 * Note that I have more examples of somewhat ill-advised splittings, with retrospect also probably only for the same reason of creating infoboxes on the splits, and not in the interest of better (or more even) quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. Above I rather chose to elaborate one example than bore you all with multiple examples of the same (I was thinking e.g. of the Missa (Bach) split-offs).
 * For Gerda I hope also if such improvement of her editing conditions were possible, she'd feel less restricted in editing for the wider benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole, not only for the articles on which she can leave a more prominent mark. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Replies by Francis
 * @: I'm largely indifferent on whether infoboxes are improvements to articles or not. But you did catch nicely what this is about:
 * current system is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia
 * requires a lot of work by others not in the least interested in infoboxes
 * the inherent ownership issues with the current situation are not tenable. There's no reproach to what happened in the infoboxes case: I think arbitrators did the best they could under the given circumstances. Just looking for a way to improve.
 * what I'm suggesting is neither a mitigation nor an expansion of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case, only adjusting it so that it is more workable for uninvolved parties, and Wikipedia's content benefits from the adjustment.
 * Re. Thryduulf's procedural suggestions on determining consensus in the article-by-article scenario: I'd keep it as low profile as possible, with a WP:CCC attitude. From the two examples I gave above the first was rather high-brow (see WP:ANRFC), the second (Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243) not. Both work for me. If someone wants to re-open the discussion, they should feel free (without lifting the "two edits per infobox discussion" of remedy 3.2).
 * @: as an initiator I ask an improvement of my situation. I ask an improvement for Wikipedia's overal quality situation. Whether Gerda likes it or not is not the main concern here. If the amendement would be implemented and after that Gerda would still not be interested in pulling two related articles (like BWV 243 and BWV 243a) to a comparable level of quality that's her loss, but at least some red tape for others who are interested in that would be lifted. See also my first reply to Thryduulf above.
 * @ — I'm not interested in what plays there: liking the role of a victim? Stockholm syndrome? Seeking an anchor for periodically "proving" that Wikipedia is a bad system? Really, I'm not interested. The situation for Wikipedia is not optimal, and whether you, personally, are interested in optimization of the situation for Wikipedia, or not, should not play a role in the deliberation I'm suggesting.
 * @, — see also  — I've quite had it with Gerda's antics, and that was even before she went WP:FORUMSHOP, see . Apparently AGK hadn't even read the section title. It's an amendment request, not a clarification request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Anyway, thanks for looking at this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "more diffs" suggestion by
 * Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)
 * Also, Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, most prominently halfway through that section starting from "Related issues with the Bärenreiter score reference (used several times): it is the D-dur version (so not 243a)..." to the end of that talk page section illustrates the "jumping through hoops" red tape, burdoning those not involved in the infoboxes debate.
 * This talk page section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGerda_Arendt&diff=629548317&oldid=629548022#Hint illustrates more of the unnecessary complications that can be linked to the same.

Not sure what Gerda tries to say... The over-all impression remains that she's not interested in seeing what benefits a streamlined "remedy 3.2" could bring her, the encyclopedia and myself. I'd rather like a situation where Gerda and I work together on BWV 243, than me doing a lot of unneccessary extra work, and then getting a compliment from Gerda for that at the end: I don't care very much for the compliment, but at least I seriously object to the unnecessary extra work: it is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia.
 * Regarding Gerda's second reply:

But as said, whether or not Gerda is only successful in looking at it from her own situation and/or from the situation of the encyclopedia as a whole, should be immaterial to the decision I'm petitioning here. So I'm really not sure what she's trying to prove.

Again I'm not interested in "why" Gerda apparently feels comfortable in a situation she describes as kafkaesque ("I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are" ). Neither the fact that she appears to feel comfortable in that situation, nor, even less, the "why" of that should have any influence on the outcome of this amendement proposal, imho. So I hope we can leave that part of the discussion behind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Gerda isn't topic-banned is she? Please see content of remedy 3.2. Gerda is not disallowed from the topic, not in mainspace, not in discussions, there's only a limited set of edits w.r.t. the topic she cannot do.
 * Re. "Surely, if there's a clear talk page consensus, someone else who's not topic-banned could go about making the actual edit?"

Its about creating the conditions that allow Gerda to edit in mainspace on the topic (in the current ruling: always on articles she created; never on other articles) that throw the complexities to deal with (also) on others. Apart from the splitting, merging, creating issues that others need to clean up,... (already discussed), and the initiatives on trying to find consensus on infoboxes I'm not interested in, which I undertook nonetheless as an extra task, there's still more work proposed... (and for something Gerda is very good in and I'm not). Then when I messed up on the infobox layout after Gerda has used up her two tokens to discuss it for that article a new unworkable situation is created...

My proposal is about creating more workable conditions for all, maintaining the partial topic ban idea of remedy 3.2, but with less difficult to manage side-effects. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Really, not helping. People still enclosed in their own arguments at the time of the ArbCom case are not likely to see the wider benefit of the amendment I propose. I kindly ask ArbCom members to put such arguments aside and give no attention to them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "Leave it alone or lift Gerda's sanctions altogether" line of arguments

Yes, that is a fact. Gerda does. Nikkimaria does (with the sole objective to avoid the infobox). There's no secret about that, both are clear on their motives in that respect. Others get caught in the fire. I'm thinking for instance about a nemcomer like Meneerke Bloem here, clueless about what is going on (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 52). All of this is very counterproductive, and makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for newcomers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "You think Gerda creates aticles ONLY to add an infobox?"
 * Oops, misjudged that one apparently, Gerda prefers the sanctimonious approach now. Gerda created BWV 243a (which is the history of BWV 243, there is no "difference in history"), and apart from adding the infobox:
 * Gerda added history to the BWV 243a article, which is the history of BWV 243 too;
 * Gerda added an elaborate description of the work to the BWV 243a article, which happened to be a description of BWV 243, not of BWV 243a (she didn't even have/use a source on 243a for writing that description: the minor differences in orchestration etc were overrun and the description was written as if BWV 243a was the same as BWV 243 in that respect)
 * Gerda did not collaborate on descriptions specific for BWV 243a, e.g. Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
 * The publication history section Gerda created for BWV 243a was incorrect for that article: it was the publication history of BWV 243. It incorrectly listed publications that were only applicable to BWV 243
 * Gerda suggested to merge the two articles back again after that, which is not what she says now.
 * Gerda refused to collaborate on the BWV 243 article after I had moved the BWV 243 description there from the BWV 243a article, reason for that refusal explicitly stated by Gerda: because BWV 243 had no infobox.
 * So really the creation of BWV 243a was only about the infobox, all the other content Gerda contributed on Bach's Magnificat could as well, or even better, have been placed in the BWV 243 (or the pre-split) article. And about an undercurrent of ownership which was somewhat cemented by the current wording of the 3.2 remedy of the infoboxes case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not about "making errors". Everyone does. This is about an environment that creates less error-prone and "leave the cleanup to others" conditions. These others are volunteers too, and the cleanup they do is out of free will too. It is about creating conditions that reduce the surplus work for all involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You see, I got myself involved in this very time-consuming amendment request, still I believe that when it passes the amount of time gained later in avoiding unneccessary cleanup situations will be more than a marginal net benefit, and not only for myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Although, theoretically, "consensus" is impossible (as RexxS argues), the article-by-article treatment (without prior rights for the creator of the article), as proposed by the amendment, shows little practical problems to reach an agreement for the articles where this approach has been tested: No turmoil or drama, just editors coming to an agreement on the best solution for the article in question. So yes, the proposed amendment would be effective in solving problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the effectiveness of the proposed amendment
 * Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)
 * Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243

Statement by Gerda
I think this is a waste of time. I came to love my restrictions, kafkaesque as they are, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, I wrote He was despised, because Messiah (Handel), then up for FA, had no room for the music. I wrote four supporting articles, including Messiah Part II. They have infoboxes, the main article not. Mind the dates, Messiah was TFA on 23 March 2013. - In a similar way, I worked on other composition articles, compare Mass in B minor to Mass in B minor structure, most recently Bach's Magnificat, the only difference being that the article on the music was not called Magnificat structure. I am rather proud of BWV 243a already (going to be improved) and happy that BWV 243 was improved as well (mostly by you, Francis, the way to include the details in both articles is admirable, and I didn't know it), - this was the starting point. - I am on vacation. Don't expect anything from me until November. I feel that I have to improve the Bach cantatas for Reformation date in my limited time. One has an infobox (BWV 48), two not (BWV 5, BWV 56), because although I wrote most of their content but didn't start them. I don't know what our readers think. - Victim? The victim of the infoboxes case was Andy, not me, but yes, you typically find me defending the victim (17 June 2013). If you all can improve the situation without me, that would be wonderful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't create articles to have an infobox, I create articles to inform readers. Normally, I do that in place, look at Locus iste (compare the start and today). For the Bach Magnificat, the two versions have different history, key, scoring and recordings, therefore (!) I started a different one, and still believe that two separate articles are better than one, but if others disagree, they could be merged to one Magnificat (Bach). All this is content, nothing for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 243a is a work in progress, and I make errors, sorry. The Christmas elements are planned for Christmas, the sourcing of the structure for next week, unless someone steps in to add sooner. This is a project based on voluntary effort, right? - To see the term "comfortable" applied to a kakfaesque situation is quite amusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I have marked "love" above with a sarcasm icon? - Last, a bit of article history. I came across Bach's Magnificat when I wrote about Rutter's, wanted to compare to Bach's treatment, and found there was nothing to compare, and some of the little bit about Bach's Meisterwerk was wrong. I fixed what was wrong and started the new one, planned to be TFA on 2 July 1717. I am going to sing Rutter's today. Magnificat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Singing was great. A bit more of history: BWV 120 was created in 2010 to, also BWV 120a and BWV 120b which were redirects then. Nikkimaria split them to individual articles, which I think was a good idea! (There are several more of the kind.) Francis made individuals articles BWV 233 to BWV 236 back to redirects today which I think is not a good idea. Every BWV number deserves its own article even if that is a stub first, and BWV 233. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having to add Missa, BWV 232a, which is certainly no stub, but was also redirected. I reverted that one, will leave the others for, I have better things to do on a Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Peaceful talk resumed on (now) Missa in B minor (Bach).

Locus iste --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
It was prophesied that the way the Committee handled the infoboxes case would just lead to it coming back here in some other form sooner or later. I've lost count of how many times now it has done, and each time the Committee has refused to do the necessary nettle-grasping to sort out the mess they've left the topic in, particularly regarding the endorsed (and arguably required) WP:OWNERSHIP and the battleground it produces.

On this occasion has missed the point of the request. This is not about lifting Gerda's restrictions for her sake, it is about amending Gerda's restrictions to avoid disrupting the encyclopaedia. I have not looked at the evidence presented, but if the allegations are correct then Gerda has found a way to remain within her restrictions while adding infoboxes to existing articles (which is a long-term benefit to the encyclopaedia) she did not create (which is against he restrictions). The method she has allegedly employed to do this disrupts Wikipedia in the short term (excessive necessary splitting/forking/duplication of content) and creates work for others to fix.

It is a perverse situation whereby someone must disrupt the project in order to improve it, but it is one entirely of Arbcom's own making. The suggested amendments to the restrictions would go part way to removing this disruption, but without also removing the ownership advantages of the anti-infobox users and making and enforcing a requirement that all such talk page discussions be: then there will just be more removals of infoboxes to the detriment of the encyclopaedia.
 * Publicly and neutrally advertised (I forget which article now, but I did see an article where an infobox had been removed based on a discussion that was not-unlikely canvassed and closed after ~3 days by its initiator);
 * Be confined to discussing the specific infobox for the specific article; and
 * Closed by an uninvolved user

ArbCom made this mess and now it needs to clean it up. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because this is not about Gerda. As explained =by myself, the initiator, RexxS and others, this is about the restrictions placed on Gerda harming Wikipedia. Please actually read all the statements, not just Gerda's. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You've seriously requested this to be archived? Seriously? I'm not sure I've seen such a blatant abdication of responsibility from arbcom before. There is no way on earth this ammendment request has run its course - basically everybody except Gerda is saying the arbcom needs to take action - so please take some action. Arbcom is supposed to be about resolving disputes that are getting the way of the encyclopaedia rather than facilitating them and then burrying its head in the sand about the consequences. I object in the strongest possible terms to this being archived without action. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Question by Resolute
I have no knowledge of this topic area, but BWV 243 and BWV 243a look like near copies of each other. It forces me to ask why these were split in the first place. On the surface, I can see no reason to do this other than to force an infobox into the new fork. Unless there is a good reason for this that I am not seeing, I am inclined to support Francis' position that a change to the restriction is needed, though I'm not sure the one he proposes would be of benefit. Resolute 15:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
The articles themselves are created to allow expansion on a topic where the main topic cannot encompass all that detail. Clearly if they re short or have some repetitive material WP:DONOTDEMOLISH applies. Otherwise, if there is an issue with them being a POV fork, then a merge recommendation, or in an extreme case AfD, is the solution, not a run to this dramaboard crying that Gerda created an article. Really? You think Gerda creates aticles ONLY to add an infobox? Oh PUH-LEESE. Get a grip! Truly, ArbCom has far greater things to worry about than this. This whole thing is crap. Frankly, my opinion is that Gerda's restrictions on adding infoboxes should be lifted altogether, and the restrictions on edit-warring to add or remove should be made to apply to everyone. Montanabw (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Surely it's obvious that the very problems ArbCom failed to solve last year will inevitably return, because their solution to the disruption caused by edit-warring over infoboxes was to ban one side of the argument - and nothing else. It's all very well writing platitudes about "clear consensus on the talk page", but frankly that's nonsense. There can be no consensus about the existence of an infobox in an article, because it's a binary decision: there's either a box or there isn't. That leaves no room for a compromise solution that everybody can live with - the very definition of consensus on Wikipedia. The current ArbCom sanctions are what is causing the forks of articles because we have on the one hand creating stubby forks to ensure that they don't have infoboxes; and Gerda on the other hand doing the same to ensure that they do have infoboxes. I hope somebody on ArbCom can now understand that giving the decision to the creator of the article is a stupid idea that generates this sort of race to see who can think of the most forks.

Having said that, it's also clear that the forks are seeing development and allowing greater detailed exploration of the parent articles. This is a good thing, but we're arriving at it from quite the wrong direction. Isn't it simply crazy that a contributor of Gerda's quality feels that the restrictions have helped her create more content? How much more content could she now make if she wasn't in a race to become the creator of an article before someone else does? That sort of situation is anathema to the collaborative process on which we so strongly depend and it's your fault, ArbCom. warned you at the time that taking sides in a content dispute was likely to end badly, but you went ahead anyway. Your problem, you sort it. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
The arbitration decision on info boxes clearly delineated two groups and penalized one. I don't see how a fair consensus can be reached on any infobox discussion when there are clearly two sides and one of those sides has more implied power than the other. I felt strongly the arbs made mistakes on the infobox arbitration and seeing Gerda an incredibly productive and mild mannered editor dragged here and there by those with out sanctions, however well meaning, often in efforts to curtail her further  only increases my unease with that decision. As said above, this is not a level playing field  so why would we expect fair play. If we want fair play and the productive editing and discussion that brings lift the sanctions on Gerda and let her edit freely. If she doesn't want the sanctions lifted or has, and to her great credit, learned to operate productively with in them then let's leave her alone to do the job she's here for. This is again, time wasted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC))

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It seems clear that the proliferation of rules and special cases is a bad idea, leading to confusion and sup-optimal results. Moreover this case is long in the past. While it can be fun on one level to "work within Kafkaesque rule sets" it is also frustrating and leads to the few editors that are prepared to do it, rather than simply leave, experiencing more stress and being less effective.

For this reason it is perhaps wise to consider whether the sanctions in place (some of which seem to be supported by uncritical acceptance of other protaganists' claims) should be at least suspended, partially or fully. Gerda and Andy can of course, if they wish, continue to abide by the sanctions to the letter.

I would see this approach as very useful when applied to some of our ancient cases. Is it really necessary to keep all these areas under discretionary sanctions, for instance?

Statement by Dreadstar
So, Gerda's restriction stays because she likes it. Bravo ArbCom, bravo. What was the other reason? And, Beeblebrox, do you understand the concept of Kafkaesque, and how it applies to Gerda's 'love' of her restriction? Somehow I think not. And this entire ArbCom request is because Gerda undid a redirect, so now it's about infoboxes? Please. I think RexxS states the underlying problem very well, interesting to see an ArbCom restriction used by others in such a manner as RexxS describes, "Oooo, I'll create lots of stubs and redirects so Gerda can't add an infobox." Clever. Dreadstar ☥   20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is a perfect example of why we generally have very little interest in appeals by third parties. Gerda isn't interested in having the restrictions lifted, so I see no reason to discuss the matter at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll need to review more than the provided diffs to get a view of this. If this is the case as framed, it could be problematic. However, I'm not immediately seeing it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just going through contribs, I want to get a more complete story than 'just diffs'. But thank you, nonetheless. NativeForeigner Talk 06:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This does seem needless complexity, but I'm not sure about the proposed change. Surely, if there's a clear talk page consensus, someone else who's not topic-banned could go about making the actual edit? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * After serving on this Committee since 2008, I have two months and four days left as an arbitrator. I do not plan to spend even five minutes of one of those days thinking about infoboxes. Abstain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Statement by Gerda: I think this is a waste of time" – speedily decline, and I must question why a clarification request of this nature was raised without the subject's consent. AGK  [•] 23:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This request has now certainly ran its course. I've asked the clerks to archive. AGK  [•] 12:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)