Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 80

Amendment request: Eastern Europe (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Presumptive discretionary sanction of 1 November 2014 by John Vandenberg


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * John Vandenberg notified on 19:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons detailed below, I ask that the Committee
 * Information about amendment request
 * sanction John Vandenberg for misuse of discretionary sanctions and failure to communicate, and
 * remove his presumptive discretionary sanction against me, by way of appeal as provided by WP:AC/DS.

Statement by Sandstein
As set out in a request for clarification on 1 November 2014, John Vandenberg issued me earlier that day with, confusingly, an "alert", "notification" or "warning" supposedly per WP:AC/DS for alleged misconduct on my part in the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this on the WP:ARBEE case page in the section "Log of blocks and bans". The request for clarification concluded on 10 December 2014 with most arbitrators agreeing with, who noted that as an alert per WP:AC/DS this action would have been inadmissible and that John Vandenberg needs to decide whether his action was meant as an alert or as a discretionary sanction, in which case he would need to issue a "hand-written caution". Despite my repeated requests to do so, John Vandenberg has responded only with evasive one-liners  before ceasing to edit altogether. A further clarification, promised in his last edit on 10 December 2014 for "tomorrow", has not been forthcoming.

John Vandenberg has violated the conduct rules that apply to admins in two respects:


 * John Vandenberg's issuing the alert, notification or warning to me was frivolous and disruptive. There are no grounds for either a discretionary sanction or any other admin action against me. To the extent I can discern any relationship between his actions and any actions by me at all, the one action by me to which John Vandenberg expressed an objection was a normal admin action, to wit, deleting a page created by a sock of a banned user,, as directed by WP:CSD. Even if this deletion could have been deemed objectionable (there was an earlier AfD, but in my view it was no bar to speedy deletion because that discussion didn't know about the ban evasion), John Vandenberg would have been out of line by responding to it with discretionary sanctions, meant to address misconduct arising from disputes about topics related to Eastern Europe, rather than with a civil query and a discussion among admin colleagues, and possibly with the community at deletion review or elsewhere, which would have been the expected way to settle good faith disagreements among admins about the merits of contested admin actions. Instead, he chose a course of action either intended to or at any rate having the effect of furthering the block-evading activity of a banned user's sockpuppets, by inappropriately stifling normal admin action intended to counteract such activity by way of the "chilling effect" of discretionary sanctions.


 * Moreover, John Vandenberg violated the admin policy's requirement that "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Additionally, WP:AC/DS specifies that admins "must not ... repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". John Vandenberg failed these expectations by failing to respond to my repeated queries – made necessary by the conclusion of the clarification request – about whether his action was intended as a sanction or as an alert, and to my repeated queries about the specific reasons why the sanction (if it is one) was imposed. His lack of response has so far prevented me from properly appealing the presumptive sanction. Per WP:AC/DS, admins failing to meet the expectations set out in that procedure "may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping".

For these reasons, I ask the Committee to sanction John Vandenberg to the extent necessary to prevent further misuse of the discretionary sanctions procedure. I also ask the Committee to strike John Vandenberg's warning from the enforcement log – either as an out-of-place and superfluous alert, or as a groundless sanction, which is hereby appealed in case it is a sanction. Finally, I ask the Committee to clarify that discretionary sanctions are not to be used in lieu of discussion among admins about whether good-faith admin actions are appropriate or not.

In consideration of the already long time elapsed solely because of John Vandenberg's confusing and dilatory conduct, I ask that this request not be suspended or declined on account of his apparent absence from Wikipedia. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see how the matter would die a natural death, as you put it. The way I see it, I'm still subject to what is logged as a discretionary sanction that was, in my view, imposed for invalid reasons and in a disruptive manner for what I consider doing my normal admin duties, which it is impeding by its existence. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable by asking for it to be reviewed exactly as provided for by the procedure you helped write. But if you see another way to resolve this problem, I'm open to any advice.  Sandstein   07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing whatever that was; I appreciate it. I remain of the view that John Vandenberg has, including by his lack of required communication in this matter, failed to meet the expectations in administrators as described in the discretionary sanctions procedure, in a manner that merits an action or statement by the Committee or its members. Otherwise, others may conclude that such an – at best – cavalier application of the procedure is in fact permissible or expected conduct, which I think would not be beneficial, including for the Committee's appeals workload.   Sandstein   09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that several editors have commented to the effect that they consider (at least some some) admin actions by me to be uncollegial. This concerns me, but their comments are not specific enough for me to understand which actions they take issue with and why. I'd like to be able to understand and address their concerns, and would appreciate it if they could explain them in more detail, and with reference to specific actions by me, on my talk page. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7
First, let me state how sick and tired I am of good content being deleted and destroyed by gnomes under spurious speedy deletion criteria. The procedure is clear; if the deletion is contested there should be a proper deletion review. Once this has been done, if the result is for the article to be kept, then the article cannot be speedily deleted per WP:G5. WP:SPEEDY lists seven criteria, and this is not one of them. Maintaining otherwise by refiling this is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND at its worst. John Vandenberg, a former Arb, is one of the most polite and patient admins we have. Absence from Wikipedia at this time of year is both normal and acceptable. In this hemisphere, the Christmas/New Year period falls in our Summer holidays and many firms shut down for two or three weeks.

Because Sandstein has:
 * 1) Failed to respond promptly and civilly to queries about Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed;
 * 2) Shown an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by filing this absurd request;
 * 3) Not showing any inclination to participate in reasoned dispute resolution (or just let the stupid matter drop);
 * 4) Continued to pursue a vendetta when told to knock it off;
 * 5) Has shown overwhelming hubris and arrogance in performance of admin duties; and above all
 * 6) Failed to demonstrate a substantial record of content creation which raises issues of WP:NOTHERE.

I therefore recommend that WP:BOOMERANG is in order and that Sandstein be admonished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Psychonaut
Irrespective of whether Sandstein's deletion of the page was appropriate, it seems absurd to invoke or apply WP:ARBEE here. Discretionary sanctions are normally meted out to those whose strong personal views relating to a given subject area lead them to disrupt the corresponding articles and discussion pages. In my observation Sandstein has demonstrated no such personal attachment to the topic of Eastern Europe, nor am I aware of any history of his disrupting pages in this area. If his actions relating to Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? were mistaken, or even intentionally disruptive, this could and should have been dealt with through other measures. As John Vendenberg has so far failed to provide the required clarification for his WP:ARBEE warning, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to strike or overturn it, without prejudice to his pursuing a discussion or remedy in some other venue. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Josve05a

 * On 11 May 2014 an editor raised the issue of the non-existence of an article on WP., the deleting admin, stated that it needed to be undeleted at WP:DRV.
 * On 1 November 2014 I independently started a deletion review. At the deletion review I raised issues relating to the notability and suitability of the article, and also re-assessed Sandstein's initial AfD closure
 * Sandstein [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2014_November_1&diff=631995915&oldid=631994637 made comments] which insinuated I was proxying for banned editors.
 * Immediately after this, Sandstein gave me a discretionary sanctions warning. The lack of warning to any other editor made me feel that he was using his position as an administrator to intimidate me because I started the DRV and because I was a little critical of his initial deletion. I simply followed Sandstein's own advice to another editor to take the issue to DRV. This is not grounds for giving a baseless discretionary sanctions warning; agreed and rescinded the warning given by Sandstein.
 * After another editor pulled the "racism" card in the DRV discussion, I asked Sandstein if he thought it was acceptable. He didn't do anything about it, and essentially claimed that the editor doesn't have a history of battleground disruption, when they do.

It is clearly evident that Sandstein is himself abusing the threat of discretionary sanctions as a tool to intimidate other editors. I agree with that WP:BOOMERANG has a place here. If Sandstein were to WP:DROPTHESTICK, things might be different, but at this point, that boomerang should be used given his continued battleground behavior at this very request and his very clearly demonstrated intimidation of other editors — I am certain is not an isolated case.

If Sandstein is willing to walk away from the carcass, this request should be closed off with the discretionary sanctions warning in place. If he is unwilling to do so I think an upgrade of the discretionary sanctions to a topic ban from the Eastern Europe topic area is in order, to give him time off from the entire topic area and to enable to re-assess his disruptive and intimidating behavior.

Statement by Giano
This is more of a comment than a statement, as I have been a long term observer rather than a participant in this sad and very sorry saga. However, it seems to me that any alerts/sanctions directed towards Sandstein need to be left firmly in place. He has consistently proved to be antagonistic towards Eastern European editors and editors of such pages. His aggressive, overpowering and often bullying behaviour (for example towards Josve05a is far from conducive to a collegiate atmosphere and only seems to cause further trouble and resentment. Sandstein is far too keen on the block button and totally intransigent in what are obviously, personal views. I see no good reason for him bringing this request. Giano    (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I have to agree with Giano that there is a long term pattern of combative rather than collegial administrative actions by Sandstein, though I would say this is far more widespread than simply EE matters. I would urge Sandstein to remember that this is a co-operative endeavour, not one in which some editors are corralled by others into "desired behaviour". I would also urge to disengage from his loathing (well known or otherwise) of Russavia: such feels are best left in Las Vegas.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Fæ
My world view aligns with Rich's. Things are going badly wrong when trusted users cannot act in a collegiate manner and even worse when their first reaction is to reach for a stick and then ask for a bigger stick when that fails. It is a pity that Arbcom has no official trout to fix on user pages for six months. Perhaps soft remedies might be a smart idea for 2015?

I had to raise an eyebrow at the idea that an Arbcom member would not automatically recuse and refrain from making any remark that might prejudice the outcome of a case when they have stated that they "loathe" a related party. We know Russavia can be supremely irritating, but this does not make him evil. Next time you are tempted to go after him, try dropping me or one of the established Commoners that work with him a friendly email; I'm sure you know most of us. It is likely to be a lot more effective when he has another silly poke at the bear. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am actually minded to agree with part of Hawkeye's submission in this matter. Sandstein, I do not see what is to be achieved by this request, and I question why you are not letting this matter die the natural death for which it was on course. AGK  [•] 23:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandstein, please just drop the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would vacate the warning, although there is an argument that I should recuse because of my well-known (and increasing) loathing of Russavia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per AGK's comment below, is this now moot? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also would vacate the warning. The DS system is designed for editorial actions, not admin actions. We explicitly banned sanctions that would "require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or restrict their usage", which necessarily implies that concerns about uses of admin tools should be taken to the committee, not the DS system. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FEastern_Europe&diff=639941443&oldid=638341461 removed] the warning several days ago, by way of implementing the result of the previous hearing of this dispute. AGK  [•] 08:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please drop the stick. T Canens has sound reasoning, but as an additional note, I don't see any admin misconduct here. NativeForeigner Talk 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the warning should have been removed, but I don't see the need for sanctions. Now that AGK has removed the warning, I don't think there's anything more we need to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with GorillaWarfare. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agreed with GorillaWarfare. I see nothing else that needs done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the Clerks to archive this now,  Roger Davies  talk 06:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Fæ (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Fæ (talk) at 11:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


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


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * None


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


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ


 * Details of desired modification
 * Permit use of authorized bot accounts.

Statement by Fæ
This request is to have the one account restriction placed on me in 2012, amended to permit bot accounts, i.e. specialized accounts with an authorized bot flag. These would be linked on my main user account pages to show that I am an operator/maintainer and responsible for maintaining them within their community agreed scope. It seems sensible to make this a one-off request rather than coming back for an Arbcom decision for every possible future projects where I am operating or co-operating a bot account. As my edits to Wikipedia continue to be scrutinized by multiple users, I believe Arbcom can be reassured that any potential issue would be flagged early.

In the past two and a half years since the Arbcom case, my many projects for images have needed non-bot changes using tools (e.g. batch using VisualFileChange), such as filename corrections, which have affected and improved Wikipedia and many other projects, however it was always within conventions for cross-project/global improvements to be implemented using my single editing account. The project to take the User:Commons fair use upload bot and migrate it to WMFlabs, after the operator recently had their accounts blocked, has brought this to a head as this was an established bot task that would be fully automated. I would like to get this running within a few weeks and then promote it again as a service that benefits Wikipedia as it is an easy way to copy files from Commons when their local use can be justified under a Fair Use rationale, most often when a group deletion request on Commons is likely to make photographs or scans unavailable on Wikipedia in multiple languages. At the current time, users either give up and let images vanish from articles or have the complexity of doing local uploads manually. At times this causes delays meaning deletion requests are closed by the time they get around to it, creating work for Commons administrators to undelete and redelete, rather than simply templating the file for a bot to handle it.

As my various bot projects have been mainly focused on images for the last three years, I cannot imagine a situation where anyone would confuse bot accounts with editors, or editing using my single non-bot account, which would remain the only one used for making edits to English Wikipedia pages not marked as bot edits. At the time of the one-account restriction I was new to creating bot projects, I do not believe it was ever Arbcom's intention to deter me from extending these community supported projects to improving the English Wikipedia as this was not an issue in 2012 and has not been in the years since.

Related links:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_9
 * User:Fæ/privacy statement of accounts
 * Current bot accounts not used on the English Wikipedia: User:Faebot (mostly GLAM related work on Commons, plus various maintained reports such as c:User:Fæ/BLP_overwrites and WMF Advanced Permissions), User:Noaabot (daily USA weather maps)

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).

Fæ: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * recuse. When Fæ queried whether this amendment was necessary, I noted that I would recuse unless explicitly asked not to due to our both having extensive interactions with Wikimedia UK. Fæ has not contacted me regarding this, so I am recused. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be initially inclined to grant this, limited Fae to one editing account and whatever bot accounts he and the BAG/crats agree are necessary, used only for tasks approved for trial or operation by the BAG. Perhaps "The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1. Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one."  I'd leave the number open ended as I understand why someone running tasks from Labs might want to use discrete accounts for discrete tasks.  Courcelles 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to deny this request. If no one objects, I will post a motion along the lines of what Courcelles proposed in a day or two -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support a motion along the lines of what Courcelles proposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per Courcelles. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fæ: Motion
For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting one who is recused, so 8 support or oppose votes is a majority.

Proposed:

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * As proposer, copyedit as desirable. Courcelles 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just tweaked formatting. Wording looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Yunshui 雲 水 19:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 21:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  - MrX at 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Proposed_decision
 * Link to relevant decision Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Proposed_decision

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

Statement by MrX
I'm seeking clarification of the 1RR restriction place on Arzel. Specifically, please expand on what is meant by "any specific edit". It is ambiguous, and as far as I can tell, has been interpreted to mean "the exact same content".

Note: I'm not seeking to have any pending AE decision overturned, as that is water under the bridge.

See this request for arbitration enforcement for further background: WP:AE. Thank you.

Please see two lines up ^. I'm not asking for the AE decision to be overturned. I'm requesting that Arbcom clarify the restriction in the linked decision. What does "any specific edit" mean? - MrX 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: The definition of specific does not have the same meaning as "exactly the same" or "identical" (words, punctuation and formatting), the latter of which seems to be the standard that has been adopted here.

In other words, "specific" is vague. Do you mean "identical"?- MrX 03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the clarification from Seraphimblade. Feel free to close this request as you see fit.- MrX 00:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'm "involved" only as an admin active at WP:AE where I and the two other named admins have expressed the view that the enforcement request made by MrX is not actionable. I don't see anything in the decision that particularly requires explanation for the purpose of enforcing it, so far.  Sandstein  19:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Discussed and pretty much settled at AE -  I do not know why this second bite at the apple is being made here. See especially Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written (from User:HJ Mitchell)  Collect (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@HJM: I suspect the fact that all the uninvolved admins who commented on the topic previously appeared to be in agreement may be a good indication of where this issue now raised in a new venue might be headed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Response from Harry Mitchell
Note that I closed the AE request as redundant to this one, as opposed to this one being opened because the filer didn't get their way at AE. I think the request is a genuine attempt to gain clarification. I'm not sure clarification is needed, since three experienced AE admins reached the same conclusion, but that's an answer to a different question. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel
MrX's primary argument seems to be that the first edit constituted a revert because I returned the article (section) to a previous state. My argument against was that it is beyond the scope to expect an editor to go far back through history to ensure than an edit did not return to a previous state. MrX stated that the removal of an entire section would clearly constitute such an edit because it was clear that it would (I would have to disagree somewhat because articles can change significantly over many months and years.)

Also, if we take the opposite view such logic is simply not logical or enforceable. If I had added a section which had previously been removed the same logic would apply. However, how would one know that such a section had been removed prior without extensive examination of the history to look for such an edit. It would be a far more difficult assumption that something added had been removed at some point in the distant past, something I think even MrX would agree.

I looked back a reasonable amount of time (past month) to see if that had been recently added or modified. It had not. Perhaps there may be some needed clarification, but MrX's approach is not, in my opinion, reasonable. I was abiding by the spirit of the agreement even if MrX would claim that I broke some technicality (I disagree). Thankfully it would appear that the admin's agree. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
There is GAMEing going on here, but I don't think its on the part of Azrel.thre is no ambiguity about the "exact edit" certainly if he was making multiple reverts touching the same content one would think it would count. However, there is an entirely different issue here. If the content in question was stable for a significant period of time then I would also characterize the first deletion as an "edit" and not a "revert". while technically this does remove someone's previous work, such would be true of any removal of any content anywhere, and certainly we do not count the first removal edit as a revert for the purpose of 3RR generally. I think to be counted as a revert the content must have been the subject of recent insertion/editing (hours, days, a week at the most, unless there are extenuating circumstances like a long running dispute) Note that this characterization is opposite of the one I made at AE, because I was not aware that the content in questino had been stable in the article for some time.

While I no longer think this is a violation of 1RR, I would say removing content, and then removing it again when reverted is somewhat in the spirit of edit warring though, and it would be better to have gone directly to discussion or an RFC (which has now been done) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity is "does the first diff count as a revert", since at some point in the past it was put into the article by (multiple?) someones. (Original version put into article March 11, 2013 ). while that removal does not revert the entire article to a prior state, it does revert that particular section to a prior state (its lack of existence). Personally I think removing content put into the article almost two years ago does not meet the common understanding of "revert", but I do see the wiki-lawyer argument as being one that deserves clarification. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Just in case anyone is unaware, there is a concerted campaign to add negative material about Breitbart, in order to undermine its credibility as a source for the GamerGate controversy. I'm not sure which "side" is pro-Breitbart, and which is anti, but this is essentially an extension of the GamerGate battleground.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse (except I've added it to T:ACOT). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

American politics/Arzel: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It looks like there was already reasonable agreement among the administrators who reviewed this request. I certainly don't see any reason to overturn their decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MrX, could you specify what's unclear to you about it? Arzel is prohibited from making more than one revert of a specific edit per week. I'm not sure how to simplify it more than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It need not be absolutely identical, but it need be the same edit. If it's the same edit with a few cosmetic changes, it would be, for all intents and purposes, the same specific edit. As far as consideration as a revert, it's long been community practice that, while any edit could technically be construed as a revert (after all, you're undoing or changing something that someone else did at some point in the past), a "revert" is in practice construed as a wholesale or partial reversal of a recent edit that's clearly intended to reverse such an edit. Normal editing of an article is not considered a revert. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade's statement just above. I think it obvious enough that no actual amendment to insert the language  is necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference whether it reads "any edit" or "any specific edit". Seraphimblade explains in detail what it means above and it would be redundant to spit that back out. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At risk of sounding like a broken record, I agree with Seraphimblade. Courcelles 20:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Seraphimblade. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And me. Seems straightforward enough. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agreed with Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here. And since we're all on the same page, I'd say this request can be archived. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Climate change (WP:ARBCC) (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) at 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:

List of any users involved or directly affected
 * (initiator)
 * Generic FYI link posted to affected article talk page

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
The question As you know, WP:ARBCC (and the new DS system that enforces it) applies to the broadly construed topic of climate change. Does that encompass the article Scientific consensus? My request/opinion I would like to see you answer "YES", and an admin or clerk paste the notification template on the article talk page. Supporting article history
 * Dec 4 2004 (William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that attacked global warming.
 * July 18, 2005 OK, now that the Climate wars have quieted down a bit following the Arbcom decision, I've taken a look at the rewrites. -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What prompts the motion Originally I wrote something about the users and editing that has been happening recently, but after completing it I decided to redact it. After all, I'm not seeking AE against anyone at this time. If anyone asks, I can just add it back. It should also be obvious that well-funded PR firms are paid to undercut belief in the notion of "scientific consensus" as part of various industries' fight against regulations, fees, and taxes. The fossil fuel industry is joined in that regard by tobacco, big pharma, and many others. There are plenty of RSs for that too, if needed. Conclusion If you agree, then please have a clerk post the DS notice on the article talk page. Thanks for your attention, Happy Holidays NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Serten's odd Jan 5 comment, the article in question has had a static title ("scientific consensus") since it was first created by someone else in 2004, and Serten was a prolific participant at the article talk page where I posted the notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
The discretionary sanctions would apply to any edit was what broadly construed to be related to climate change, so not every edit on the page would be covered, though the two edits you linked (2004 & 2005) would be covered. Edits regarding tobacco and big pharma very likely wouldn't be covered, but edits regarding fossil fuel probably would. So the short answer is yes and no, and it depends on the edit. For example, an edit to Al Gore regarding his military service wouldn't be covered by the ARBCC discretionary sanctions but an edit to the Environmentalism section very likely would be. Whether it's worth adding the DS template to Talk:Scientific consensus, I don't think it matters two much, the template doesn't need to be there for someone to be sanctioned, nor for them to be alerted about the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by J. Johnson
I would point out that Scientific consensus and the editing and issues there are directly connected with Draft:IPCC consensus, which has parallel issues and authorship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, NAEG provided notice at Talk:Scientific consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serten II
I am the author of the Draft and I was as well involved on the page here. Nobody informed me so far. Nice approach. Point is, the Article Scientific consensus has been dragged into the WP climate wars, via copy and pasting from Politicization of science, which is parroting the US specific controversies, merchants of doubt, Climate change, evolution and so on. Yawn. I have been told today that a scientist daring to write a critical review about Oreske in a scientific journal is no scientist at all and major contributions (from a Holberg Prize laureate) from science studies about science are "cargo cult science". Thats the sort of debating culture at the moment.

In the meanwhile, I have rewritten the entry Science studies and received some friendly support from an actual scholar in the field. . The stage here is not my game. However I am sort of annoyed about the way scientific consensus is being hold hostage for a low quality side show of the US climate wars. It could be improved in an valuable entry about the development, use, limitations and strenghts of science consensus approaches in addressing wicked problems, using a more abstract level than Ozone depletion and climate change. Serten II (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Climate change (WP:ARBCC): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Essentially as stated by Callanecc. In the case here, the entire article isn't related to climate change, but portions of it could be. If the edit is in a portion of the article not related, it is fine, if it is related, that particular edit falls under discretionary sanctions. As to templating, normally, an article talk page should not be templated unless all or almost all of the article would fall under DS, as almost any article could have a portion related to various areas under DS. The example of Al Gore is a good one. We wouldn't template the article on Gore himself because part of the article could relate to climate change, since edits could be made to most of the article in regards to his political career, life, etc., that would have nothing to do with climate change. A template on An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, would be appropriate, as that entire article would fall under the climate change DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything to add beyond what Callanecc and Seraphimblade have already said. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. Worm TT( talk ) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What they said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The test to be applied to the article on Scientific consensus is, as stated above, quite clear. Please proceed accordingly. AGK  [•] 23:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think nails how this one should be handled. Courcelles 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree with the above. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Same view as the above, FWIW. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade's comments are all that needs to be said here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above, particularly endorsing Seraphimblade's statement of the way to evaluate particular pages.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add here beyond what has been said above -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) at 21:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)

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

Statement by Richard Arthur Norton
I am currently following Wikipedia rules on attributing source material and have been creating articles in my user space at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) as examples. I would like my restrictions on 1) creating new content in Wikipedia space lifted and 2) on adding images to dead people's profiles under fair use lifted.

I have gone over my earliest edits to attribute the source material used and rewrite blocks of text where the writing was insufficiently altered. I have not found any additional ones and no one has brought to me any further examples that need work. Any additional ones found in the future will be fixed right away. I would like to continue adding images to dead people's biographies under fair use. I will use the most current template and make sure it is filled-in as completely as possible.


 * @Wizardman: Your last edit at the CCI was removing the quote parameter from the reference saying "such a long quote is a fair use violation. especially for a one-sentence article." yet the source material was published in 1911 and is in the public domain. If you want to lobby for the removal of the quote parameter from references it is better to do it at the talk page of the template, than to remove them ad hoc under the guise of a fair use violation or a copyright violation. This is an issue that needs to be resolved globally. If you think snippets used as quotes should be one word, or one sentence, this should be argued at the talk page of the template. That is why the count is so high. That needs to be resolved at the Wikipedia level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @All: It would take an additional 10 years to go over 10 years worth of edits. Why don't we run one of the bots designed to look for strings of text matching outside sources. I think Coren bot was one of them ... and run it against every article in Wikipedia. And rank them based on how much text appears in the article. It can ignore text in parenthesis and in the quote= function and ignore works published before 1923. A bot would be objective instead of the subjective way it is done now. One person decides that the quote= function from public domain sources is a copyright violation. One person was saying that the title of articles in Wikipedia represents a copyright violation and was truncating all the New York Times headlines down to the first sentence, and counting that as a violation. The 36% number comes from counting use of the quote parameter in references as a copyright violation, even if the snippet comes from a pre-1923 published source. While I have not added text to the CCI pages, I have made over 1,000 edits to my earliest work, in chronological order, not the order presented by the CCI pages. I have changed grammar, and trimmed long quotations, and reworded the Army Air Force biographies, which may/may not be US government public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
Richard Norton is celebrating 10 years as a Wikipedian tomorrow. He stands as #124 on the Most Edits list with over 153,000 edits (he is a plain editor, not someone with a bot-inflated count). He is #96 on the new starts list, with more than 3,000 articles started. Of these, a very small fraction, mostly c. 2005-2007 were problematic — granted that a very small fraction of a huge number is significant. Regardless, he now understands copyright rules with respect to WP content. No one has complained of copyvio in his work of the past year or two... Richard has a huge backlog of new material to be moved to mainspace, the current system of proxy-editing his starts is not working. He will be under very close scrutiny for any future copyright violation, rest assured. The current restriction upon him (which was ill-advised in the first place) does nothing but fetter his work and should be ended. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Psychonaut. The CCI case will never be completed. Their methodology does not scale and, as you mention, their backlog is massive and growing. In short summary: it only takes three demonstrated instances of copyvio to open a case. Once opened, a case can never be closed without each and every edit in the history of the subject of the inquiry being hand-checked. For a new contributor or a small-scale contributor, this is possible; for one of the most prolific contributors in the history of Wikipedia — as RAN is — it is not possible. CCI had fewer than a dozen really active volunteers at the time of the Norton case, these to handle every single case. It's an absolute waste of RAN's time as a content-writer to be hunting copy vio needles in haystacks (not to mention it's probably not going to happen, not to mention it would be a subject of a copyvio investigation policing the ancient edits made by himself...) Carrite (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 46 unresolved cases older than the Norton case, which was launched in November 2011 — more than 3 years ago! There are 106 additional unresolved cases that have been launched since the Norton case was launched. Not only does CCI's investigative model not scale as it needs to for the Norton case, CCI is an absolutely inadequate, completely bogged down, massively and irretrievably understaffed institution. Mr. Norton's early editing will never, ever, ever be investigated and corrected by CCI. We can point at glossy pictures of "pillars" for newcomers to Wikipedia all we want, but the fact is: done is done, it's not gonna be undone, and the question is whether there is a problem going forward and are we willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces? RAN is not a threat to produce additional copyright violations and he has not been for a long time. He's not going to redo a decade's worth of editing because a minor fraction of his early editing was problematic. He's a content writer and he's writing content. The simple question is this: are we gonna improve the encyclopedia by using it or not? Carrite (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
As the one that brought the case against Richard Arthur Norton here in the first place, I have no objection against lifting the restriction on creation of new content (i.e. articles) in the mainspace. His user space articles seem to be copyright-violation free. I believe he still has a tendency to use quotes excessively (in footnotes), but that is less of a problem and doesn't need a restriction if it doesn't get a lot worse. As for the image restriction, I'm less convinced that there won't be problems with this, but have no recent evidence for this. Fram (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Psychonaut
Richard Arthur Norton is asking for his restriction to be lifted on the basis that he has fixed all his past copyright violations, and that no one has brought any further ones to his attention. However, at his CCI (Contributor copyright investigations/20111108) there remain literally tens of thousands of edits to thousands of articles yet to be checked. It's true that no further copyvios have been found there since 2013, but consider that no one has even been processing the CCI since that year. (Sadly, CCI has such a backlog that cases there often languish for months or years between edits.) We simply cannot take the lack of any recent discoveries in the CCI as evidence that they don't exist. In fact, I would wager that if processing were resumed, many further copyvios would be uncovered.

In light of this, I wonder if, rather than allowing him to start creating new pages again, it might not be a better use of Richard Arthur Norton's time to assist in the massive cleanup of the old ones. Keeping the restriction in place until such time as the CCI is completed might give him a greater impetus to clear the backlog.

I haven't been involved in this particular CCI but am pinging those who were most active in it (User:Sphilbrick, User:Hut 8.5, User:Moonriddengirl, User:Wizardman, User:MER-C, User:Amalthea, and User:Bilby) in case they want to weigh in. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Carrite: Except for the very smallest edits, this is not a "finding needles in a haystack" problem; it is a "shooting fish in a barrel" problem. On the first page of the CCI alone, 36% of the articles checked so far were found to contain copyvios.  Richard Arthur Norton is uniquely qualified to identify his sources, since he's the one who found and copied from them in the first place.  He could save us all a lot of time by actively marking and fixing the positive cases.  No matter how understaffed CCI is, we can't simply throw up our hands and ignore the copyvios; ensuring that our articles are free content is one of our core principles. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman
I'd be okay with lifting the restrictions had he been active in helping remove any copyright issues and helping out on his investigation. Instead, There have been next to no edits in 2014 on his CCI, sans a slew I just did. The fact that we have found more than a few just on the first page shows that this is something he has to work on. Yes, CCI is forever backlogged, but if he's not helping then I can't sympathize. Wizardman 22:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
As I have stated before, the original case against Richard Arthur Norton 1958- was soggy to say the least.

Richard quite correctly says, and others reflect, that the amount of work required to manually check every contribution he has ever made is enormous, and indeed there are more pressing cases such as Jagged, which introduced falsehoods as well as huge obvious copyvios, into Wikipedia and more widely, and have largely been abandoned (some of my more recent work on this can be seen on meta) - given the lack of decent tools, and those permitted to run them.

I can see no reason that we should perpetuate the sanctions against Richard Arthur Norton 1958- which were always punitive rather than preventive.

I wholeheartedly commend this amendment to the Committee.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Hut 8.5
We do have some bots which scan new pages for potential copyright violations of things found elsewhere on the web. However my understanding is that it isn't possible to use these on existing pages because many sites copy or mirror Wikipedia content and the bot would pick these up as potential infringements. Even with new pages these bots make plenty of mistakes and their output needs extensive review by humans. I would be very surprised if anyone manages to write a bot that can figure out when a piece of text was first published.

The only edits RAN has ever made to the CCI are. While it isn't reasonable to insist that RAN clear the CCI before the restrictions are lifted, it is reasonable to expect him to do something.  Hut 8.5  20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting any further statements. Statements should focus on whether the concerns about Mr. Norton's editing that prompted us to impose the restriction have been addressed in his more recent editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear some more statements before making any decision (which may not happen before disappear off the committee), but in principle, I'd certainly have no issue with easing these restrictions to allow Richard to show he's able to work without causing issues especially if he has put right what's been pointed out. Worm TT( talk ) 11:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm amenable to applying the standard "parole" (i.e. we lift the sanction, but for the first year it may be reimposed by any uninvolved admin, in the event of further problems). Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to hear from those originally involved, but absent any serious and recent concerns, I'd be amenable to Salvio's suggestion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Based upon Wizardman's statement, it looks like it's not yet time to look at removing these as the conditions for doing so haven't been fulfilled. For reference, though, once that is done, I would certainly be happy to support relaxing these restrictions, and don't in any way hope for them to be permanent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a little soon, in my book, to be loosening restrictions applied in 2013. I am likely to oppose the motion suggested above, at least for the time being: the issues identified in the original case, although diminishing, are not clearly gone. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The restriction states, in part; "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him". Is any evidence available?  Wizardman only speaks to 2014, but the restriction wa spassed in the first half of 2013. Courcelles 23:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The remedy provides that "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions." I see no such evidence submitted in this request. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline per the evidence given by Wizardman -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm leaning towards decline given Wizardman's statement, but will wait a few days to see if any of the other CCI regulars involved who were pinged by Psychonaut have anything else to add. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles' and Timotheus Canens' points are valid, and I don't see Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s comment above about using a bot to scan all of Wikipedia for copyvios to be terribly relevant. Is there evidence that you could provide of work on your part to the CCI? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline as the condition cited above is not met - no particular evidence of "substantial work on RAN's part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions." I sympathise with the amount of time it would take to review every single past edit for copyright violations, but a) that is not the condition in the remedy, which only requires "substantial work," and b) presumably RAN knows where the likely copyvios are and can address them quicker than others might. The fact that there are other even older lists of copvios to be checked, or that the CCI backlog is very long, are not relevant to this specific remedy. Re bots - sounds great but it doesn't exist as far as I know, so it's not an immediately practical solution. Lastly I note Courcelles' question above - would happily reconsider if evidence was now provided of RAN's "substantial work" towards the CCI investigation from 2013 (or any other time).  -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Eurylaus. Absent evidence that RAN has done "substantial work" on reducing the backlog of his own CCI there is no benefit to Wikipedia in altering this restriction. The aim of the restriction was not punitive but rather to improve the project by removing doubt about the copyright status of articles he potentially added copyright infringing material to by either removing any copyvios or showing they are clean. By doing this it would also assist his demonstrating an understanding of copyright issues and how they affect the project, without which it would be be very difficult to be comfortable the problems would not reoccur. That is not the only way that understanding could be demonstrated, nor does that understanding alone guarantee the restrictions will be lifted, but it would be a Good Thing all round. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Thryduulf. That we will never completely clear up CCI is not an argument against trying to at least partially improve the situation there.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My colleagues have already exhausted the reasons for my opinion. I'm obviously willing to consider a change when there is significant effort put in to clearing the CCI, without that, Decline. I do thank RAN for making the attempts in his userspace to show his attempt to resolve the issue. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Ebionites 3 (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Ignocrates (talk) at 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1 - Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


 * Ignocrates (initiator)
 * John Carter


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * John Carter


 * Information about amendment request


 * Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban
 * (a) remove Ignocrates from the two-way ban and change the scope to a one-way interaction ban, or alternatively,
 * (b) change conditions of the two-way ban from "interacting with each other" to "commenting on each other as persons"

Statement by Ignocrates
I am appealing my interaction ban resulting from the Ebionites 3 case. I believe I showed that I can engage in constructive commentary on John Carter's proposals and ideas during the recent Historicity of Jesus case. In particular, I requested by email that ArbCom temporarily relax the ban restrictions for both parties within the case to permit a discussion of proposals and ideas put forward by the parties. I believe I demonstrated on the workshop and proposed decision talk pages that a constructive exchange was possible. Here are some representative examples from the HJ case: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7

Accordingly, I'm asking that the remedy be modified so that my half of the ban restriction is lifted, or the conditions of the two-way ban are relaxed, to permit me to engage in similar constructive commentary on John Carter's proposals and ideas on Wikipedia in general. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, see this diff8, where I provided evidence at AE that John Carter did not violate his topic ban. The point of all this evidence is to demonstrate that I can comment on John Carter's proposals and ideas without making it personal. It would be useful to be able to do that at Village Pump and on other community pages without worrying that the mere act of posting there is going to land me at AE. Ignocrates (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: where's the AGF guys? The best I can do is to take responsibility for my own actions. Ignocrates (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, if the outcome of this request is going to turn on the conversation on WTT's talk page, the subsequent AE filing by John Carter is just as relevant. In contrast to WTT's opinion, AE closed the incident report with no action taken because they were not convinced a violation had taken place. To do otherwise would have established a precedent that simply posting to ANI is a ban violation irrespective of what is actually said. Ignocrates (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to point out the isolated diffs that John Carter is producing and wonder how he could possibly be doing that without systematically trolling through my edit logs. This is what stalking looks like, along with casting aspersions and personal attacks. Ignocrates (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @, @: I agree with both of you. I was being overly optimistic based on the recent HJ arbitration case. I thought there was a noticable improvement in communication, but I can see now that I was mistaken and this I-ban should remain in place. Please consider my request for a ban modification to be withdrawn. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I would suggest that the arbitrators review the history of the above editor since the interaction ban was levied here. I believe it show that in the intervening period he has had as one of his few real activities, basically, stalking of me, and attempting to assist individuals who, like User:Fearofreprisal, have been in conflict with me. This can be demonstrated rather obviously by his interjection of himself onto these pages, with which he had had no prior involvement, but which could, not unreasonably, be seen as being clear evidence of stalking as per WP:STALK: here, almost immediately after my comment five minutes earlier, visible in the same page. Other instances would include the recently closed Landmark arbitration case, a topic with which he had never displayed the slightest interest in before, and, basically, pretty much everything in the intervening year other than his interactions with Ret.Prof and development of two articles, both of which are activities he has had no engagement in according to his edito history for the last few months. In fact, a former arbitrator specifically commented on his obvious stalking in this user talk page thread. Based on his recent behavior, I have no reason to think that the lifting of the existing ban would do anything but amplify the amount of stalking I have been subject to from Ignocrates. He has more or less indicated above that he actively seeks to interact with me directly, truly remarkable since he has demonstrated no personal interest in any of the pages I edit beyond interacting with me, and I have to assume that basically demonstrates that his purpose in making this request is to basically continue to engage in stalking of me, rather than doing anything truly productive. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only sanction which has been levied to date in this case was once, against me, when I pointed out the outright dishonesty of one of Ignocrates' statements. I regret to say that the last comment above by him is rather clearly a second lie of his, as he seems to insist that, somehow, after two weeks of inactivity, he "somehow" found one of the ANI threads I was active on completely by accident and made comments to seek action against me. Ignocrates has made a point in the last year of indicating that he is capable of indirectly discussing my activity with others who have been up for sanctions, including Fearofreprisal, who was topic banned, this smart-ass comment relevant to nothing in particular to that user, whom I had previously disagreed with regarding the status of some of Bart Ehrman's comments, this "hello" to BruceGrubb, who had been banned from the historicity of Jesus/Christ myth theory in which I was involved, User:Neuraxis, who was topicbanned as per a discussion I was involved in here and here, and some of his other comments which seem to have been directly leveled at me, often critically, in the Landmark arbitration and elsewhere with other editors. The evidence of STALKing is rather obvious, I'm afraid, and if I am to be again sanctioned for noting Ignocrates' habit for dishonesty, so be it. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that nothing Ignocrates impugns above actually addresses the matters raised. Also, as I think I have said before, I have every page I edit automatically added to my watchlist, so, honestly, every edit he has made to pages I have already edited would appear on my watchlist. And to call review of evidence "trolling" shows, I think, more about the ego of the person making it, and his lack of grasp of policies and guidelines, than anything else. But, repeating the obvious, I watch pages I edit, and when someone who has been banned from interacting with me miraculously appears editing those pages, particularly when they like Ignocrates have had no previous contact with them, that is the much more obvious stalking and trolling. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Ebionites 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I haven't read all the links in detail yet, but I'm reluctant to remove an interaction ban when one of the parties is clearly very unhappy with the prospect. Comments from other observers would be welcome too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. The comments on this page clearly show that the interaction ban needs to remain in place. Both parties need to refrain from behaviour that could appear to be stalking, and both parties need to stop accusing each other of such behaviour. Interaction bans are normally left in place until long after the users concerned have lost interest in each other, and that is very far from the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My initial inclination is to agree with Thryduulf here. Courcelles 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline as withdrawn. Courcelles 08:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Decline, largely per the thread from WTT's talkpage, linked by JohnCarter above, which strongly suggests bygones are not yet bygones. Sorry Ignocrates, I appreciate the inconvenience of this I-ban but on present evidence there's not enough to support its removal and a reasonable case that it remains entirely necessary. --Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @, thanks for the additional comment above. At their simplest level I-bans are acknowledgement that two otherwise good-faith editors cannot interact without animosity. There's evidence of that in the WTT thread, and also in the comments from both parties in the evidence section on this page. These alone are sufficient reason to maintain the I-ban. Please note I am not attributing blame or responsibility for poor interactions, simply noting that they continue and that this supports sanction retention. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Decline I don't see how removing this would help the 'pedia -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  09:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per my colleagues,  Roger Davies  talk 12:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Per Euryalus' second comment. The effort is definitely good, but at the end of the day, the iban still serves a purpose. NativeForeigner Talk 20:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Fæ/R2.1 Bot Edits (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Xaosflux at 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Statement by Xaosflux
Greetings, I am a WP:BAG member and we are currently reviewing a BRFA (Bots/Requests_for_approval/Commons_fair_use_upload_bot_3) operated by User:Fæ. Seeking clarification on Remedy 2.1, to determine if BAG may authorize Fæ's bot (assuming it meet's all other qualifications) to perform tasks that may run afoul of his topic ban regarding "images relating to sexuality, broadly construed" - as the bot may potentially edit interact with "images relating to sexuality". — xaosflux  Talk 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC); (  removals and additions —  xaosflux  Talk 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC) )
 * No intrusion on BAG domain, we are primarily concerned with: the technical aspects of a bot, that it operates within policy, and that there is a community consensus for the activity to take place. With all bot edits being the responsibility of the operator and this restriction in place we are attempting to determine if this is permissible under the restriction or not, if ARBCOM wants to add logging requirements as a condition of the restriction on the operator that is fine as far as the bot approval would go. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
Firstly, I suggest everyone keep in mind that User:Commons fair use upload bot is a good thing, intended to help sustain Wikipedia content and avoid the deletion of images on Commons with demonstrable educational value from being lost to Wikipedia. Any decision or outcome here should be positive for the encyclopedia.

I summarized the technical situation in the BAG request linked above. The request here is slightly misleadingly worded. The Commons fair use upload bot does not "edit" images, nor does it insert them into Wikipedia or Wikipedia articles, it can only ensure images continue to be on Wikipedia unchanged in a way that the reader would never notice.

Though I do not believe a further motion is needed, this does raise a more general issue that Arbcom may wish to clarify, in that this topic ban or future modified versions on my single editing account cannot be relevant to authorized bots, given that BAG decisions over the last few years show that no bot would be acting as an article editor. I would be highly concerned if the "broadly construed" subject of sexuality were to apply to automated bots targeted at general maintenance, as this effectively reverses the Arbcom decision to allow me to be a bot operator by making automated action almost impossible without an advance human review on each action. One might imagine that if the operators of fully automatic archiving bots were to receive a topic or interaction ban on their main account that they would have to abandon such bots for the duration of a the ban, which would be an unintended damaging consequence if bans are intended to be precautionary rather than punitive.

I read the Arbcom placed topic ban placed after I was unbanned as already requiring me to avoid deliberately by-passing the topic ban using other accounts, just as it would require me to avoid 'directing' other editors in a manner that would be interpreted as meat puppetry. Were the operation of a bot be potentially interpreted as being able to by-pass the ban, say because myself as the operator were able to direct its actions making it an oddly Heath Robinson editing tool, then I am sure this would come up at the BAG discussion and a flag would be refused until this were made impossible. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a strike above to reflect diff. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I can confirm that the bot picks up images before they are deleted from Commons and localizes them (the bot does not need admin rights on Commons to work). This is why the reader would not know that anything had happened. --Fæ (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to your follow-on question, I can add a log. Keep in mind that the same data sits in our public wiki logs for images and the edit log for the bot, so this data was fairly easy to track using current systems. Rather than making surplus edits on en.wp, I would rather that a text audit log is kept on WMFlabs (a facility for easy linking to files was only announced this week, see wikitech). Audit logs on labs are normal for helping track or debug other tools and fits rather better with the fact that we would really want a simple cross-project log and track the same data for projects like Wikisource as well as Wikipedia and other projects that opt in at future dates without having to rewrite much in the core code or have to set up odd log pages on each project. When the tool is running, we can add a prominent link to the audit log(s) on the bot user page for anyone interested to browse.
 * By the way, as mentioned above on the BAG request discussion, only Commons administrators can request that images up for deletion use this bot for local copies to be made. As I am not a Commons administrator at this time, it is already impossible for me to make this request. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Logs will be maintained at http://tools-static.wmflabs.org/commonsfairuseupload. There will be samples to look at during the trial period. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for putting a motion. I am concerned that the wording means that future bot activities that include the English Wikipedia will end up being returned by BAG to Arbcom for future motions, one for each project, even where this is an existing approved bot.
 * I believe it would be a benefit all round if the motion can be expressed in a more generic fashion before it is passed that can apply to future projects, without necessitating further Arbcom requests. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I hear what you say. I do not believe it is appropriate for any bot operator to run bots that enforce their personal editorial values, neither do I imagine that the Bot Approval Group would let such bots run on this project. If I have to have my ban lifted before it is realistic for me to operate bots on this project, then I will prepare a request, however due to real life stuff I was not planning to have to think about that for a while. --Fæ (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that reading the source code addresses the points made about whether the operator has some sort of editorial control. Arbcom need not make another resolution or motion on this for it to be effected. Firstly, before this request was raised, I had already chosen and declared that I will publish the active code on Github, secondly the Wikitech:Labs terms of use require the code to be freely licensed and open source, in fact anyone with an account on labs can browse everyone else's projects, and thirdly the BAG process, which is required by the recent Arbcom motion (even though this was the only way to get a bot flag on the English Wikipedia), ensures that the source code is published in order for it to be reviewed. --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that the topic ban placed as a condition of the unban at the beginning of 2013 was "Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed". This is a magnitude larger than "sexual images" (as you probably have genital nudity in mind) and has been interpreted by Arbcom to include any LGBT material such as general gay pride photographs which I regularly upload to Commons as part of my work with Wikimedia LGBT, the photographs of long dead suffragettes which I had planned to work on, and would include a large proportion of the 100,000 medical history drawings and photographs I have uploaded as part of my project with the Wellcome Image library, regardless of their encyclopaedic value, unless they are objects such as Roman artefacts or early mediaeval illuminated manuscripts which were created before 1,000 AD. It is this wide and hard to interpret restriction which I was planning to appeal later in the year. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
I think the arbs who have already commented should reconsider. Actions taken by the bot where Fae has no editorial input or decision making should not be subject to the ban. The analogy to the archiving bots is quite apt. However, if the bot were discovered to have special logic in it to apply in the banned area differently or preferentially, that would be a very severe issue as it would indicate deliberate circumvention of the ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Pass this with the stipulation that the code remain open source (https://github.com/wikigit/Commons-fair-use-upload-bot); simpler than trying to infer the logic from a log. NE Ent 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
 * This is as straightforward as allowing Fae to edit, for example - it will undoubtedly affect sexuality related articles, but not in an intentional manner.  It should be speedily allowed.
 * I disagree with NE Ent's proposal to require open sauciness. Primarily because this is an intrusion on the liberties of bot-writers.  The acid test is always (or it should be) the edits made.  In certain circumstances, of course, the Committee, in common with other groups, may not be competent to judge the edits made - help from experts in the community should in those cases be sought.  Secondarily open source does not buy the assurance that is promised, for a number of reasons.
 * Finally it may well be nearing the time where the Committee should review the wider restrictions on Fae with a view to decreasing them.

Statement by Victuallers
Strongly agree with Rich Farmbrough. Speedy allow with the aim of ending restrictions in the future. Victuallers (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
I have worked with Fae on various projects including several things in recent years on Commons, Fae is a very useful, skilful and prolific contributor. If Fae was running an archive bot that any editor could opt into would we hold him responsible as to which editors chose his bot to archive their talkpages? If not then why would we be concerned about this particular bot?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 21:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Please comment in your own section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fæ/R2.1 Bot Edits: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * recuse (as I was recused on the motion that enacted this remedy). Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We did authorize you to operate bot accounts, but we did not relax your restriction for this purpose. Although I recognize that applying this restriction to fully-automated accounts will be challenging, I feel you are still expected to keep the bot from editing these areas. If you feel this is impossible, then you will either need to appeal that restriction, or have someone else operate the bot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, after more thought, I've changed my stance here. It would be inappropriate for Fae to create and operate a bot that was intentionally editing in the areas from which he was restricted, but bots such as this (that have been identified at necessary, and are reviewed by the BAG as being appropriate) should not be needlessly restricted because of restrictions on the operator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with GorillaWarfare. It would be necessary either to find a way to keep the bot from making edits in the restricted areas, appeal to have the restrictions lifted, or have someone else operate the bot. Having someone else operate it is an option, provided they understand they will be fully responsible for all edits the bot makes, as is true of any bot operator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is my understanding correct: The bot does not edit articles, it only uploads images here that are about to be, or have been, deleted Commonsside?  And it uploads them under the same name, such that no edits to articles are required?  Or does the bot run after the (renamed, but y'all know what I mean) CommonsDelinker ran, such that a revert on the actual article would be required? Courcelles 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the underlying task is pretty much uncontroversial (the former owner ran it with no problems I'm aware of) and that the control of which images to upload here is not being made by Fae, but rather editors on Commons who add Commons:Template:Fair use delete to image pages, I'm rather mindful to craft something to just allow the task to go forwards with a minimum of problems. Courcelles 21:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hate to do this again, and I also hate to stray too close to acting like BAG, but would it be possible to modify the bot to make a log page here on enwp of which files were transferred, what article they were used on at the time of transfer, and which editor Commonside asked for the transfer? Because what I'm currently thinking is somehow to allow the BOT to be fine moving such images, but for you, yourself, to not be allowed to request such transfer.  If we had a log, I think that could walk a fine line between letting the bot be fully functional, yet staying inside your personal restrictions. Courcelles 22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think (tentatively) that I agree with Courcelles (as I understand him to be saying). As long as it does only the technical function narrowly defined, it would not be a violation if by accident some sexual images got caught up in it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I am saying. Courcelles 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If BAG allows it, I will allow it. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  07:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. If it's ok with BAG then that's fine. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure we don't need to pass (another) motion to that end... Courcelles 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be consensus allowing this subject to BAG approval but it does really need a motion to set out the limited exemption to a restriction. This is mainly because it reduces the possibility of future misunderstanding and uncertainty about what Fae can and can't do,  Roger Davies  talk 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Fæ)


Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) I feel silly proposing the second motion on this topic in less than 11 days, but I believe that passing this now is necessary if we want to allow the bot to run as intended. Courcelles 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I think this reasonably addresses the concerns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Alright. I'd prefer a more general motion, but I suppose that could wait until Fae indicates he wishes to run multiple other bots. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I too feel silly for this, but I have no objection. I have changed the wording of the motion to require a log, instead of suggest, to avoid any ambiguity on investigation. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) NativeForeigner Talk 20:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Clarification request: Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  DaveApter (talk) at 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Additional_eyes_invited
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Additional_eyes_invited

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=641760040 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=prev&oldid=641760122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theobald_Tiger&diff=prev&oldid=641760207 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astynax&diff=prev&oldid=641760269 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATgeairn&diff=641760350&oldid=641334183 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANwlaw63&diff=641760604&oldid=641476238

Statement by DaveApter
The recent Arbcom case closed with the remedy:

6) The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed.

Recent activity on the talk page of that article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#To_move_forward.3F et seq - purports to be in furtherance of this remedy, but appears to me to be at odds with it.


 * states (correctly) that he is previously uninvolved with editing this page, although his comments do not appear to be compatible with having  no strong views on the underlying controversy.
 * has edited extensively on the Dutch wikipedia site Landmark Worldwide article from a strongly negative POV. And in fact was recently indefinitely banned from that site for edit warring and personal attacks. His appeal against the ban was declined here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Theobald_Tiger&direction=next&oldid=42788930
 * has made various edits on the Landmark article and talk page and elsewhere over the years and made it clear that he has strongly held personal opinions or prejudices on the topic.

Threaded discussions
My apologies that I hadn't realised that threaded discussions were not permitted here. This is my first experience of Arbitration. No offence intended. It's fairly late here in my timezone and I'll clean up anything necessary tomorrow. DaveApter (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Theobald Tiger section
 * My sincere apologies if you are not the "Theobald Tiger" here : https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=42765220&oldid=42735552 or the one sanctioned in the above link. But you will appreciate my confusion, given the identical name and the similar interest. DaveApter (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I'm really perplexed - given that TT now admits that he is the "same editor", how can it be that he "has never edited with a negative POV on Dutch Wikipedia" or that "my statements are outright lies..." etc? DaveApter (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Gaijin42 section
 * OK. my apologies if I got some details wrong ( I don't speak Dutch either), but the main point remains: this is not in any sense an "uninvolved editor". DaveApter (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to
My intention in raising the matter here was to check whether the Arbitrators feel (as I do) that immediately after the closing of the case, one of the remedies had been flagrantly flouted. Since it's a clarification of whether the remedies are being observed rather than a clarification of the ruling itself, maybe this is the wrong place to bring the query, perhaps it should have been at Enforcement? If so I apologise.

My substantive point is this: rather than uninvolved neutral editors coming in to improve the article (which I would welcome, and have repeatedly tried to encourage over the past few years by RfCs, posts on various noticeboards etc.), a cluster of contributors descended who are clearly operating from the viewpoint that more negative material should be incorporated.


 * 1) Regarding, it is entirely clear that he has extensively edited the Landmark article at the Dutch Wikipedia, and that he has done so from a negative viewpoint. The issue of why he was blocked and for how long is not the main issue (and again I apologise if I made some invalid assumptions), but surely my concern is understandable when a blocked editor with that history turns up here?
 * 2) Regarding, someone who writes "What is significant is that many people call Landmark a cult" hardly seeems to be demonstrating that they have  no strong views on the underlying controversy!
 * 3) Regarding, their viewpoint has been made abundantly clear.
 * 4) Regarding, I can only leave it for others to judge in the light of his consistent comments around the subject over many years whether it is plausible to take seriously his claim to be a neutral and impartial commentator.

Finally regarding John's accusations and insinuations against me, I should point out that over the past seven years I have made an average of eight edits per year on the Landmark article. Also that although accused in the recent Arbitration case, no findings of fact against me were made on any of the evidence submitted, and no sanctions proposed. John has not produced evidence to support the serious allegations he has made against me, of to justify his incessant hounding of me over the past few months or the repeated personal attacks.

As regards, what I am suggesting as a remedy, I really don't know what to suggest. Maybe the 'future Discretionary Sanctions' will have to be applied already? DaveApter (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Accepted
Regarding the matter I originally raised here, I fully accept the views expressed below by the Arbitrators, especially as most clearly stated by GorillaWarfare. I appreciate that no action is called for and I trust that it is understood that I raised the concerns I had in Good Faith. However matters seem to be spiralling out of control, as I discuss in the next subsection. DaveApter (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks and harassment of myself by John Carter
As you will be aware from John's comments below, I made a request at ANI for an interaction ban between John and myself as he has been hounding me on a more or less daily basis since making a totally spurious accusation against me on the talk page of the Proposed Decision on 21st November. The request was closed almost immediately with the comment that 'this matter is being dealt with by the Arbitration Committee'. A large sample of diffs is included in my submission at ANI, which I will not repeat here.

Every time I issue a statement to clarify the position, John or his collaborators demand a different form of words and I have lost patience with responding to them.

The latest attack is on the Landmark Worldwide Talk Page, where John says
 * "You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization."

None of this is true; there is not a shred of evidence to support it; and in fact I have already dealt with most of those points previously.

If any responses to John's accusations are required from me, please let me know what they are and I will provide them. DaveApter (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Drmies
I can only apologise for any distress I have caused to Theodore Tiger due to my over-hasty extrapolation from a limited grasp of the situation at the Dutch Wikipedia. No malice was intended. Drmies is correct that I don't know my way round this Arbcom thing. This is my first experience of it, and I have found the past three months extremely stressful. Added to that, I have been on the receiving end of a whole barrage of personal attacks and unwarranted accusations throughout the whole period. Added to which the situation at the Landmark article seems to have got worse rather than better since the closing of the Case.

For the avoidance of doubt, I dispute that "my COI is a matter of record". But I don't think this page is the venue for pursuing this further. On the contrary I have made my position clear that my perspective is one of a former - broadly satisfied - customer of Landmark who did several of their courses some years ago. Would we say that an iPad owner had a COI in editing the Apple Inc page? DaveApter (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
First, I am rather amused that DaveApter of all people has the gall to say anyone else has strong opinions, when he himself has clear and obvious ties to the group which he refuses to actually directly indicate. In fact, I think it far from unreasonable to say that his attempts to get the content related to this topic to reflect favorably upon a employee-owned group whose non-public records he has demonstrated he has access to raises very serious questions whether it is even remotely reasonable to think that his actions are not driven by his own strong and obvious interests and opinions in this matter. FWIW, I don't actually know (or care) much about Landmark and its various iterations, and have no particular opinions about it, although I acknowledge having a remarkably low opinion of DaveApter as an individual for his own edit history regarding this topic. Also, honestly, I have to wonder what exactly is being asked here. I don't see anything in particular which indicates exactly what sort of clarification or amendment is being sought. Also, FWIW, a review of the arbitration case itself will indicate I proposed a merge at that time, so my doing so now shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The fact that this clearly biased individual believes his clearly biased opinion is grounds for filing this request seems to me a likely WP:BOOMERANG scenario when one person with clear ties to the group doesn't like the actions being taken by others. I would love to see NYB comment here as well, if he sees this, because it will be noted that I left a message on his talk page asking him to become involved, as per the "comment" committee I proposed, and named several other people whom I have in fact all contacted regarding this, although not all have replied yet or necessarily replied in the affirmative. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, should realize he should still edit in his own section. My own personal request for amendment based on what I see here is that, maybe, discretionary sanctions be authorized and implemented based on the conduct of DaveApter in this request, and that he be the first person to receive sanctions based on his conduct here. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Request to arbitrators: I think it might be possible for you to all to institute discretionary sanctions on the topic as per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide, as this is the appropriate place for such a request to be made and I believe the obviously inappropriate use of this page, and seemingly self-admitted misrepresentation of facts by the filing party, are very possibly grounds for sanctions against him, or, at least, an indicator that such sanctions might be called for in general. Yes, even after only a few weeks since the arbitration case itself was closed. I am however unsure whether a request to that effect would have to be filed separately, or whether, coming so quickly after the arbitration was closed, it would have any significant chance of being implemented. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question to arbitrators: Would it not be possible to think that this request itself is a form of misconduct, maybe sufficient for imposition of discretionary sanctions by motion? John Carter (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that User:Theobald Tiger has announced his resignation from wikipedia because of the personal attacks levelled against him by above, which Apter himself has basically acknowledged were incompetently raised, based on his misinterpretation of comments in a language he can't read. The jumping to irrational and dishonest conclusions about the actions and motivations of others which he has displayed, along with his disregard for actually bothering to see whether his attacks had any basis in reality, raise very serious concerns. These unfounded, irrational personal attacks which have cost us an editor here, coupled with his other behavior, including his refusal to acknowledge how he has access to non-public information of a group he is so clearly so closely tied to or the specific nature of his relationship to the group in question, raise to me very serious questions whether the time has come to institute discretionary sanctions, and also to consider specifically discretionary sanctions on the editor who has engaged in these dishonest, incompetent, acts and personal attacks, DaveApter. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing abusive misconduct by DaveApter
In addition to his own self-declared incompetent, unfounded personal attacks against Theobald Tiger, mentioned above, DaveApter has recently seen fit to subject me to sanctions because I note his ongoing refusal to ever come clear regarding what seem obvious unresolved issues regarding his possible personal COI at WP:ANI. He seems to ridiculously believe that he has an absolute right to continue to engage in behavior in violation of WP:IDHT about these matters, and on that basis I have to believe that there are both serious grounds for imposition of discretionary sanctions in general on this topic, and on DaveApter, for his ongoing misconduct, in particular. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Theobald Tiger
I have never contributed with a negative POV on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have never had any involvement - pro or contra - with Landmark, its predecessors or its activities. I am not indefinitely banned from the Dutch wikipedia. There is no such thing as my "appeal against the ban" which would have been "declined". DaveApters statements with respect to me are a mixture of outright lies, ill-informed gossip, irrelevant speculation, malevolent ad hominems. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:46, 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to DaveApter
 * I am the same editor, but all the same: nothing you have said is true. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your perplexity is presumably due to your biased position, and it is in all likelihood deepened by your extremely poor command of Dutch. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Gaijin42 section
 * Gaijin42's statement is completely accurate. I regrettably lost my temper when a Dutch admin additionally blocked the talk page of an excellent Dutch editor who defended himself against an (undeserved) block, because - in my view - the Dutch admin community in large part is unable to appreciate widely used forms of literary expression. I do not see how this can be relevant to the issue at stake. My contributions to the Landmark article are not negative at all: I have added a nuanced and well-sourced section on the topic of Landmark's supposed religiosity; I have added a sentence describing the influence of est on the development of coaching, I have changed some statements in the article that were clearly wrong, and I did some general editing. All of my contributions have been favourable to the article's content and wording. On the talkpage I have objected to an editor with a clear COI. Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The block was completely unrelated. The block request you will find here. The appeals are also on that page. And here are the corresponding talk page discussions. Drmies' input would of course be appreciated. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The indef block was a very strange move of the blocking admin. He started to negotiate with me what to do after I lost my temper, and I replied sarcastically: give me an indef ban, that would please the editor who gave an embittered comment a few minutes ago. And then I got to my surprise an indef ban without precedent and without justification. I had called somebody a near idiot, what I should not have done, but it was - of course not entirely without reason. It caused a lot of turmoil and eventually there was an editor who asked for a reevaluation and there was an admin who cancelled the block. The whole issue turned out to be a storm in a teacup, and it is in any case not relevant here, I think. But if required, or if it will be helpfull, I will make things clear. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not prepared to defend myself against malevolent lies any longer. Goodbye to all of you. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
My entire experience with Landmark was attending a single introductory meeting some years ago. Never heard of them before that. At the time I did some quick checking on the org, decided their seminars were not for me, and never worried about it again. My involvement on the article talk page so far has been to suggest we include criticism/characterization of the group as a cult/new religion etc where right now there are only denials included (and how we can neutrally do that) and to discuss structure of the article and merging in related articles. I've made just two article edits so far - add a merge tag and adjust a wikilink.

While it is unclear what the question or proposal is, it is clear the editor who dragged us all here did not get the point of the Arb ruling, is guarding the article, and is now trying to scare away or force away anyone who wants to edit. I request for this absolute abuse of process and false allegations this editor be topic banned from Landmark Worldwide and all related articles for 1 month so that other editors can get on to fixing the article without being bitten by the guard dog. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to DaveApter's further attack: Please read the whole post at the link he provided. Clearly the person with strong views and an agenda is DaveApter. If he is not topic banned under this Request, it will not be long before the community has enough of this behaviour and sends him to the penalty box. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I second John Carter's question about this being an abuse of process- and ask further if this is not the right forum to seek remedy, please suggest one. The only bias editor in this discussion is DaveApter. I'm thinking COI noticeboard next. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So far no one has been willing to make significant edits, perhaps because all suggestions are shot down and all sources not to their liking are immediately dismissed as unreliable. Then we are dragged here. Happy to use other processes to deal with this RfCs, ANi, 3RR, DNR etc. Just let us know. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
For those that don't want speak dutch, or don't want to wade through google Translate, Theobald was blocked for 3 days. The block was appealed (by someone else?) but was procedurally declined because there is apparently a policy in place that does not allow for Dutch ArbCom review of blocks of 3 or less days. The block was subsequently lifted early by another admin there. He was not indeffed, and is not currently blocked, but is marked as retired there. He edited on the Landmark article there, but I did not look to see if there was any POV issues, but based on how widely the block was misrepresented, I doubt it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to DaveApter
 * They are either outright lies, or you very seriously misinterpreted the evidence on the dutch wiki to the point where your entire statement should be thrown out. See my review above on his "indef ban" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't speak dutch, and made mistakes of this caliber on basic verifiable facts, how did you determine that his edits written in a language you do not know were from a "strongly negative POV" or were in any way inappropriate? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re to Theobald Tiger
 * I was unable to find the discussion that led to the original block. If you could link to it, that would be helpful to clear the rest of this up. But you could also just summarize to say if the block was in any way related to Landmark on the Dutch wiki, or was completely unrelated. Also or other Dutch speakers might be helpful in clarifying what happened there. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That does seem to show you requesting (and receiving) an indef. Was the "3 day" issue only applicable to the other editor? Since it was a self requested block, that still is quite the misrepresentation from the OP. but at this point someone who actually speaks Dutch will have to evaluate. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Look guys, just go ahead and authorize DS on this topic. Maybe then uninvolved editors would be willing to come in and help out. As it is, you're asking folks to come in and sort through the house while it's still on fire, before the firemen have been called in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Josq
I'm nl:user:Josq on the Dutch Wikipedia, someone asked me to give a clarification over here. I see that people have risen doubt about the neutral involvement of Theobald Tiger (TT) in this case. I'm the administrator being responsible for the block of TT which was discussed above. Additionally, I have been approached by a certain nl:user:The best you can get! (Tbycg) with regard to the article nl:Landmark Worldwide. I'm however not at all familiar with the procedures on this Wikipedia version.

With regard to the block of TT: I think this incident is totally unconnected to the Landmark case. Some weeks ago I was confronted with a block request against TT because of a personal attack on an unrelated talk page. I asked TT to bring up a solution, and he responded ironically that he should be blocked indefinitely. Trying to "disarm" his irony, I blocked him indefinitely indeed, leaving the message that the block could be lifted as soon as he wanted. After a few days the block was lifted by a colleague, an action I could agree with.

With regard to the neutrality of TT in the Landmark case: TT got involved into the Dutch Landmark article after Tbycg edited the article extensively and after Tbycg was (partly) reverted by other users repeatedly. TT did some redaction work, making several paragraphs more concise, removing some information and external links that could be interpreted as propaganda, and added some information including (scientific) sources. Meanwhile, Tbycg kept editing the article, and in many cases his edits were partly or entirely reverted by several users, including TT. Tbycg also had started to ask the attention of many people on several talk pages, and he got strongly negative responses from most people. Also TT has been very critical towards him.

My conclusion is that TT has done his best to describe Landmark neutrally, based on reliable sources. I think on the Dutch Wikipedia there is also a reasonable consensus that the contributions of Tbycg were for a large part undesirable and that he is too involved to be a neutral writer concerning this organization. TT has acted according to this consensus, and he has gone a step further than the other criticasters - most of them only took part in discussions and/or reverted the edits of Tbycg, but TT really has tried to improve the article, conform the standards of Wikipedia. Josq (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by CaAl
(I usually don't contribute the arbitration matters on this Wikipedia, feel free to move my contribution to a more appropriate place.) As a bureaucrat on the Dutch Wikipedia, I can support TT's words: his block had nothing to do with Landmark (as a matter of fact, TT did some good efforts in removing POV from the Dutch version of the article), and other users would have received a one-day-ban for losing their temper in this way. The blocking moderator decided to ask TT how long he should block, and TT (still in the heat of the moment) responded with indefinite. It has been stated shortly after the block that TT can be unblocked if he so desires. That the indefinite block would appear to users on other wiki's not fluent in Dutch as a serious, permanent block, was an unforseen consequence and does not reflect reality. CaAl (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I was alerted by, and in hindsight I understand why someone--I forgot who--emailed me or pinged me--I forgot what--about poor Theobald, with whom I've had minor interaction over the years (see my talk page archive). Anywayz, John asked me to look at the article talk page, which I did, and pointed me to the ANI, which in turn led me here. Just a few comments, if I may. a. I don't see precisely what is being asked here, but I'll have some good faith and say that DaveApter doesn't really know what to do with this ArbCom stuff, how to read it, how to navigate it. If that's the case he's in good company. b. Dave's COI is a matter of record, but ArbCom did not decide, unless I missed something, that it renders him incapable of editing neutrally. c. As an administrator, I will not allow Dave to be abused or smeared: see an edit (well, a series of three) I made to Talk:Landmark Worldwide. d. I looked into the Theobald matter on the Dutch wiki, being fully prepared to see a totally negative editor there, and found nothing of substance to the allegations: three significant edits Theobald made there are, , and , and the Dutch Wikipedians should be happy to have (had) such an editor who, with a good command of language, inserts neutral and well-verified content. Their block was indeed lifted, by nl:Gebruiker:Wikiklaas (thank you Klaas), though Theobald seems to have left the joint anyway. I do not see how that block or its lifting has any bearing on any of this at all and,, as an administrator I will not allow you to cast aspersions on his character (I'm assuming both are penis bearers, at least while they're signed in). Discretionary sanctions or not, I have no problem with blocking you for personal attacks or laying the smack down and banning you from the topic/getting you banned from the topic via AN. Thank you all, and have a great day! Drmies (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The best you can get!
Hello, I am nl:user:The best you can get!. I am responding here to the above mentioned comments of Josq, as I consider some is not accurate. My intention is to add reliable sources and information to the article. I would like to have a content based discussion about this controversial subject. Some of the statements or claims in the article occur to me as untrue: and contentious claims must be supported by reliable sources. Theobald Tiger (TT, who is seen as a ordinairy good person) completely ignored my requests and called me a POV-pusher and made personal attacks to me. It looks like people feel offended by my questions. TT has not been neutral, so I do not understand why Josq is defending TT and putting me down. People might not like to have a content based article, but what is wrong with asking for reliable sources and discussions? Why is Josq in his comments above so negative about my contributions? --The best you can get! (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

 * My comment at the time was "While I do not disagree with the sentiment here, I don't think this sort of thing is actually a remedy that does anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)"


 * I don't think remedies like this are helpful and would encourage the new committee to avoid them in future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates
Imo, this motion needs to be reconsidered. The Landmark case was closed with no action taken because there were no FoFs to support remedies against the parties. That's why discretionary sanctions were pushed into the future. If DS are being reconsidered, there must be some new disruptive behavior to merit the sanctions. But any admin monitoring the article could have stepped in to curb that disruptive behavior with a block. So, why are there no blocks? And if there is no blockable behavior, what is the factual basis for implementing discretionary sanctions now? With all respect to and, the problem was caused by accepting the case in the first place based on unpersuasive evidence, not by a failure to implement discretionary sanctions. Ignocrates (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * I've moved everyone's comments to their own section, please feel free to reorganise how I've placed it in your section just make sure it's clear what you were replying to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide/R6 Additional eyes invited: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Okay, just what are we being asked to clarify or amend here? We can ask people to go help on an article, er can't force anyone; nor can we control who takes an interest and shows up.  So, what, exactly, are you requesting we do here?  Courcelles 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit, I thought the decision to postpone DS on this topic was a rather strange one likely to waste more time later (but I wasn't an arbitrator at the time). But that's the only step I could see us taking at this time, and that would need evidence of people actually misbehaving, and not just "the wrong people" showing up. Courcelles 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do, in fact, think we should just go ahead and authorise DS properly. Every dispute is going to come back here, for 15 people to deliberate, when a lot of it really belongs at AE, except there is nothing to enforce. The initial decision was just plain faulty here, and it isn't getting better on its own.  Courcelles 08:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What did or did not happen on the Dutch Wikipedia, and why it did or did not happen, is completely outside the jurisdiction of both this committee and the English Wikipedia community as a whole. Discussion of it here is therefore pointless - please could the clerks hat or remove any further bickering on the subject. Instead, please could people clearly express what they want ArbCom to do here, and why whatever that is cannot be done by normal processes? Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this is not going to go away on its own, and that this open request is hampering the community's ability to sort it out. I'm wary of just slapping discretionary sanctions on everything, but here it does seem that people think it will help so I think that, per Courcelles, this is probably the best solution for now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the party bringing this here (DaveApter) doesn't know what to suggest as a remedy, there's nothing for us to act on. This seems to be a general complaint that the wrong people are editing the article and that our desire for new editors hasn't resulted in new uninvolved editors arriving to edit it. But that's beyond our control. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to clarify, I decline. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see evidence from the English Wikipedia of wrongdoing before imposing DS -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  09:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The remedy encouraged uninvolved editors to participate, but it did not prohibit involved editors or those with strong opinions from doing so. I don't see what action is needed here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per GW. I'm not inclined to act upon an encouragement. NativeForeigner Talk 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The committee that heard the whole case decided that DS weren't at the time necessary. As that time was only a couple of weeks ago, I'm not persuaded that anything has changed. If, a few months down the line, there is clear and convincing evidence that the dispute cannot be resolved by any other means then by all means authorise DS then. In the meantime, Decline request  Roger Davies  talk 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we can't really act upon an "encouraged" remedy. That is what it says, an encouragement, not a mandate or prohibition. I do, however, believe it's time to authorize DS for the area, so in the interest of moving this along, I'll be proposing a motion to do so. It may be that some people need to be reined in or removed from the area, but I believe that is better determined at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . I agree, this is what needs to happen.  At least to subject it to an up-or-down vote. Courcelles 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Landmark Worldwide discretionary sanctions)
Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles 23:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, but only to overcome inertia, this will be the fourth topic added to DS in three weeks.   Roger Davies  talk 12:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't ike this. I don't like it at all. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  23:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)   DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Roger Davies. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) L Faraone  14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Infoboxes (January 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes


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


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Pigsonthewing


 * Information about amendment request


 * Remedy 1.1 - Pigsonthewing and infoboxes
 * Add "for articles" to the end of the remedy.

Statement by Callanecc
I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial.

There was an AE request filed which requested enforcement against Pigsonthewing requesting and discussing deletion of infoboxes at WP:TfD. The consensus among admins was there was an implication that the restriction applies to articles only however as this is not clear in the provision there would continue to be misunderstanding and possibly further AE requests closed without action being possible. So this request (as an uninvolved admin carrying out the close of the request) is for a motion with the following wording:

Remedy 1.1 of the Infoboxes arbitration case is amended to read:


 * The original remedy has been interpreted as discussing the removal of an infobox template, as they are used in articles the interpretation as far as enforcement goes was the remedy applied to articles. If that is incorrect then enforcing admins have interpreted it outside it's intention so it needs to be clarified. Something like adding "in all namespaces, including {all discussions/requests for deletion} at WP:Templates for discussion and similar discussions at other venues" to the end of the remedy.


 * I'd suggest dropping "to improve their functionality" as leaving it would require admins to decide whether an edit improved it or not (unless that was the attention). Other than that it sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Disagree with Callanecc's proposal. Here we see Pigsonthewing going in denial about an unresolved issue regarding infoboxes, removing the link to where the discussion of that issue was taking place: unnecessary & unhelpful – if it is qualified as "unhelpful" to try resolve an actual infoboxes issue the resulting impression remains that many months after the conclusion of the Infoboxes case at least some infoboxes proponents prefer to go largely in denial about the issues at hand.

If anything, an amendment to the Infoboxes case should imho further restrict PotW's actions regarding infoboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces" is the one I like best. Failing a compromise on that, I suppose "...discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace..."  would do best. Courcelles' rewrite attempts appear to be going nowhere: they add complexity, and thus confusion, so, no more than fertilizer to future distraction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On a related note, this edit by PotW seems to attract controversy – indeed it would have been better to talk to involved parties first, before cluttering many main namespace pages with a rather technical in-crowd notice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt
@Francis: "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." - We are not discussing here your bold change to a project page of a project of which you are not even a member, claiming that it is a "disadvantage" of infoboxes that a certain program extracting a PDF fails to render the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, who said that "Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging". This is true, and this is good for the project. Look for example at infobox hymn (specialised, old-fashioned, with camel-case parameter names and no room for an image), nominated to be merged to the more general flexible infobox musical composition. It seems desirable to have only few, well maintained infobox templates, - I use infobox person for all people. Thank you, Andy, for the unrewarded cleanup work in the field. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@CT Cooper: You say: "What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things." I say: It is not, the dispute is if the restriction is worded precisely enough and nothing else. (Not if it's a good restriction, and not in which way Andy goes about things). In the example above, he didn't talk first to users - and how would you find out which editors use infobox hymn? Seems kind of not practical, on top of being unrelated to the question here. I was pleased about his initiative to merge, - I would have been to lazy to try it myself.

See also "honourable mention", and enjoy a happy and peaceful 2015! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: the phrase "testing his boundaries" was used related to an edit which was brought to arbitration enforcement: formatting a malformed infobox. Instead of a simple "thank you" for helping a new user who wanted an infobox but didn't know how to code it, the edit received attention on three noticeboards. I asked the candidates for arbitration about it, they said "no foul, play on". I add "playful" to my wishes for 2015 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ched's question: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: You made the effort of adding a statement, generally addressing experts "who are not willing to follow community norms". Please name one specific incidence as an example of what you mean. I rather see certain projects not willing to follow community norms, at least back then in 2013. However, the ice seems to be breaking. Compare the discussions in the archive of Rigoletto talk and what you see today. I joined project opera again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You demand evidence of disruption now? No evidence of disruption was provided in the arb case, to my knowledge. I like the phrase "the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started" by Seraphimblade, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Review means looking back. Can we please look forward instead?

@Doncram: thank you for demonstrating what editors who want to simplify templates have to face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Floq: perhaps we agree more than you think ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Bach's cantata for today translates to "My God, how long, ah, how long?" - his titles are so useful, this one could refer to the length of some contribution as to the waiting for peace --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
If that was, or reasonably seems to be, the intention of the original wording, then the amendment should be made without cavil. And I would say that it clearly is the substantive intention. Any desire to extend the sanction should be the subject of a different process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Thryduulf
Note I'm commenting here as an involved editor, not as an incoming arbitrator

I fully support this, as this matches how the restriction has been interpreted on multiple occasions at AE. Indeed, I would go further and explicitly add a second sentence "Pigsonthewing may nominate and discuss infobox templates at Templates for discussion." to fully avoid any ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you give some evidence of Andy testing the boundaries? There have been several cases where people have tried to get Andy in trouble, but on every occasion the community as agreed that Andy has done nothing wrong and has not breached the restriction, which does not prohibit him discussing the changing of infoboxes that are on articles by consensus of other people. Gordian knot solutions are only suitable as a last resort when nothing else can work, but in this case there is a very simple amendment that can be made to achieve the same ends with no disruption going forward. It is completely inappropriate to penalise an editor when they are following the restrictions because other people are confused by it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The interpreation that this applies only to article space has been the one made by the community every time it has been asked, and has been upheld every time its been before the committee. Doing nothing now only guarantees more disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a good start, but I'd word it as:
 * "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox. He is explicitly allowed to:
 * Edit infobox templates
 * Change the type of infobox used on an article
 * Add, remove or change the information displayed in an infobox
 * Nominate and discuss specific infobox templates at templates for discussion or other appropriate venue (including template talk and wikiproject talk pages)."

This incorporates your response to Rich Farmbrough and Callanecc's proposed change. It also explicitly permits nominating infobox templates at TfD for any reason (to avoid any wikilawyering about whether nominating something for e.g. deletion is nominating it for "discussion"), participating in discussions other than at TfD (e.g. he can discus a template on it's talk page and partipate in a WikiProject's discussion of an infobox relevant to their project. I've included the word "specific" to make it clear this isn't permission to discuss the merits or otherwise of infoboxes as a concept) changing the type of infobox (per previous clarification requests, and which not all participants in this discussion are apparently aware of) and changing the information in an infobox that already exists (I'm not aware this has been controversial yet, but given the nature of this topic it's better to be explicit and prevent that). The bullets are just my preference for long lists of simple items over short lists of more complex ones. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel I should make it explicit that the topic ban remains unchanged in this proposal, the bullets are simply clarifications to the scope (which have been proven required) not exceptions to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please can you provide some evidence of disruption at TfD actually caused by Andy rather than other people disrupting TfD's Andy has opened? If a discussion is closed as "no, because X needs to be done first" it is not disruptive to nominate the same template again when X has been done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That motion is very good, although it leaves things ambiguous about whether he may participate in other discussions about infoboxes at TfD, and whether he may discuss templates at venues other than TfD (e.g. template talk pages). Sadly the history this dispute has shown that people will use these ambiguities to wikilawyer and harass Andy. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This motion does not change the scope of the restriction at all, it simply clarifies that it applies to article space only. The second part exists only to prevent the disruption caused by other editors using ambiguities to harass Andy, and there is plenty of evidence presented that this is necessary. As HJ Mitchell notes, evidence has been presented of other people using Andy's discussions to cause disruption but none presented that actually shows Andy being disruptive at TfD or elsewhere. Perhaps this could be clarified by changing the start of the second sentence to "For the avoidance of doubt, this restriction does not apply to any editing outside the article or article talk namespace and explicitly does not prohibit:..." Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the merits or otherwise of those deletions, they are entirely irrelevant to Andy's restrictions regarding infoboxes. There has never been any restriction on his nomination articles for deletion, for any reason, nor does it bear any relation to the rest of this discussion (which is about nominating infobox templates at TfD). That you even bring it up here is evidence of how much the current wording is not fit for purpose Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy is allowed to convert one type of infobox to another, and to edit infoboxes on articles by, in the first case, explicit decision of last year's arbcom, and in the second case by AE admins repeatedly declining to sanction him for this. He is not allowed to discuss whether an article should or should not have an infobox, and he may not change the status of an article from one to the other. Whether he is allowed to discuss the content of an infobox is not something that I can recall having been clarified (the usual recommendation in such cases is that if you are not sure if an edit breaches a topic ban do not make it), which is another example of this remedy causing as many problems as it solves. No restrictions at all were placed on Andy's activities at AfD and so he may nominate any article for deletion he wishes just like any other unrestricted editor on the project, whether he can discuss it if he has been accused of what you are accusing him of is again undefined as far as I am aware. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
although personally I agree with you -- as discussed on the linked AE thread -- this is clarification and amendment. Given the requesters have a good faith question about the scope of the sanction, a comment indicating your interpretation would be helpful. NE Ent 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
(Note: Andy is a personal friend of mine IRL so, although I have no strong feelings about infoboxes, I don't claim to be 'uninvolved'.)

This is silly. The locus of the dispute was around the addition of infoboxes to articles. The dispute was between Andy et al and members of the classical music project over whether or not articles in that project's scope should have infoboxes, and all other infobox-related disruption that led to the original arbitration case was spillover from the resulting interpersonal disputes. Essentially the project members adamantly refused to entertain the idea of infoboxes on their articles, Andy attempted to force the issue (resulting in edit wars and other disruption), the project members were very rude to Andy, Andy was equally charming in return and the whole thing deteriorated to a point where nothing could be achieved. The ban on adding/discussing infoboxes on articles was a proportionate (if grossly one-sided) remedy. Andy's participation at TfD was never part of the original dispute and his contributions regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes was never problematic. Indeed, the only disruption related to his participation at TfD has been the repeated misinterpretation (or indeed malinterpretation) of the remedy and its use as a stick to beat Andy for otherwise unproblematic edits.

The consensus at AE has at least twice been that Andy's participation at TfD is not within the scope of the remedy, so making this amendment would merely codify what is already practice and prevent further misguided enforcement requests—given the precedent, it is vanishingly unlikely that another AE thread would conclude that Andy's participation at TfD was a violation of the remedy, especially as that participation is not disruptive in and of itself. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With Callan's caveat (removing "to improve their functionality", because it's better for all concerned not to leave things open to interpretation), I wholeheartedly endorse your proposed wording. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you honestly trying to tell us that re-opening a discussion that reaches no consensus three years later (almost to the day!) is disruptive editing? Or is it just disruptive if the nominator is called Andy Mabbett? Or if the template is one that you're interested in? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on...? I see no evidence presented that Andy's TfD nominations are disruptive, and only a small amount of evidence of other people causing disruption on Andy's nominations. It is disingenuous to suggest that TfD nominations are covered by the remedy as written, as Andy's participation at TfD was never the locus of the original case; indeed it was never even discussed in the case. You are making sweeping assertions without citing any evidence; editors who do that at AE or in arbitration cases get sanctioned. Are you of the opinion that arbitrators should be held to a different standard? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by CT Cooper
I have been a part-observer/part-participant in the recent infobox controversies involving Eurovision related articles, an area in which I am active.

I presently accept, as does who raised the issue with him, that the remedy concerned does not cover his participation in TfDs. However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not, as doing so often only causes further trouble. Recent events have only re-enforced this viewpoint in my eyes, as the behaviour of Andy at the TfDs and in related discussions was problematic and managed to cause a lot of completely avoidable infobox drama – one thing the remedy was supposed to put a stop to. I criticised him as an involved editor for some of his remarks (1, 2, 3), and he was admonished by an uninvolved administrator for a separate remark (4); an admonishment that Andy appears to have rejected (5). I'm not saying that all other editors in these discussions behaved perfectly, but this discussion is not about them.

As it stands, I will not support any amendment that endorses or otherwise encourages Andy to continue to edit in this area, but I will accept the proposed amendment as a simple clarification of the existing restrictions as they are currently interpreted. However, if the proposed amendment goes through and this behaviour from Andy continues, I believe it is only a matter of time before the Arbitration Committee will be asked to review this remedy again. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the remedy is not clear at all. A person could reasonably interpret "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes" as covering TfDs as such discussion do often result in the addition or removal of infoboxes. Arbitrators seem to be giving us a variety of different answers here on what the restriction is intended to cover, which in my view is evidence in itself that the remedy doesn't work as currently worded. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the TfD nominations were justified; that is not in dispute as far as I'm concerned. What is in dispute is the way in which Andy goes about doing these things.

In the case of Eurovision template there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates, but they weren't gong anywhere fast, so the effect of Andy's actions was a lot of unnecessary drama and the templates being panic merged in a poor fashion, which later had to be fixed by outside parties. I cannot speak about the details of other cases, but it is not true that Andy is the only person on the project which merges templates. As for this remedy being unrelated, well it clearly isn't that unrelated – the remedy was about infoboxes; this discussion is about infoboxes. Claims that they are unrelated hinge entirely on the current interpretation of the remedy, which given arbitrators' comments so far, may still be up for debate after all. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the remedy is not clear that relates only to articles which is why this amendment has been proposed, and the merging/deletion of infoboxes inherently involves articles anyway. Actually, he has been admonished by an uninvolved admin at least once for incivility, which was name-calling, as was clearly indicated in my original statement. I took the courtesy of reading all prior statements before making my own, and I would appreciate it if other editors did the same. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. If I had my way, this particular case would have never ended-up in front of ArbCom. On the Eurovision templates, I did attempt to informally mediate the situation by pointing out errors in the actions of both sides and noting that there was actually agreement that some templates needed to be merged; it was tragically only drama over how it was done that was getting in the way. Unfortunately however, the issue spiralled out of control very quickly, and so here we are. If the proposed amendment goes through or no further action is taken by ArbCom, I would welcome an uninvolved administrator to come in and mediate should Andy choose to continue to be involved in Eurovision templates. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In my statement I have clearly stated that I accept the motion as proposed; said motion is not "trying to remove just Andy from template discussions". Yes other editors have not behaved well at times, that is undeniable, but Andy is the one that got himself subject to ArbCom sanctions and so this discussion is about him and him alone – I know some people are unhappy about that, but that is the reality of the situation. Actions against other editors are for another venue such as WP:ANI.

I have already presented clear evidence (I am the only person here to have actually presented diffs), which clearly shows problematic behaviour from Andy. My area of contact with Andy is limited to Eurovision templates, and there maybe kernels of truth that Andy has been unjustly criticised elsewhere, which is why I have no quarrel with some statements supportive of Andy, even if they present things from a different perspective from my own. What I take exception to it people appearing to turn-up to engage in cheer-leading and to simplistically declare that anyone who dares have a grievance against Andy is somehow on an template ownership driven witch-hunt, without taking the time to review what the grievances against Andy actually are, let alone reviewing the full facts of the matter before commenting.

I could present more evidence or elaborate in much more detail on why Andy's behaviour was at times unacceptable, but my main motive here is not to get Andy "punished" or further restricted. What I'm interested in ensuring that the sanctions are properly defined and that Andy refrains from further problematic behaviour so this doesn't need to come in front of ArbCom again. On the latter, I view coming to ArbCom as an absolute last resort and I've stated clearly that I'm open to options which are far more favourable to Andy. TfD discussions inherently involve adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and the remedy covered discussions on such matters, so yes they are related, though whether they are covered by the sanction or not is a matter for ArbCom to decide. I hope they do so soon. In the meantime, I will present more evidence if and when ArbCom requests it; I don't answer to anyone else on that subject. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

A think a complete re-wording is a good idea, and something along those lines is acceptable to me. However, as I alluded to in my opening statement, there needs to be a change of behaviour from Andy for this to be a workable resolution. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I was clear that I'm happy to accept the current interpretation (in fact, I said so in the second sentence of my statement), with my support for the motion being motivated by a desire to help set the current interpretation in stone. Any comments from me which stated the interpretation was up for debate again were in a response to some arbitrators appearing to want to review this, though I will let them speak for themselves on that. It remains my view that people should respond to restrictions by finding completely new areas to edit, rather than editing around them, though I accept that nobody is obliged to follow this advice and I have not at any point actively pushed for the current interpretation of the remedy to be altered. If in the future I reach the conclusion that stronger sanctions are needed, I will ask for new sanctions at an appropriate venue, not for re-interpretations of existing ones.

The merging of templates sometimes does involve removing existing templates from articles – such as when merging multiple templates together into a new one, as was carried out with Eurovision templates recently, but I won't quibble over such technicalities and a completely revised wording should resolve this. I agree that merging little used templates is generally a good thing, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that such activities are in themselves a problem. What is the problem is the way Andy sometimes goes about doing this, as highlighted in my evidence. Does that justify new sanctions at this point? Probably not, but if the problematic behaviour continues, that situation might change. Certainly I think lifting all the sanctions is out of the question at this point, at least until Andy proves he is ready for it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as rightly or wrongly, it was ultimately Andy's behaviour that led to this coming back to ArbCom, starting with an enforcement request, which has now been followed by this request for clarification and amendment. Myself and other editors at WikiProject Eurovision didn't even know Andy was under an ArbCom restriction to start with, and it could have easily stayed that way. I'm afraid I'm not following the rest of your points, though I've been familiar with Andy's highly positive contributions in various areas for a good while, which if I'm honest, is one reason I was as actually quite shocked to find out that he did have such a long history with ArbCom. A happy New Year to you too! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

When quoting my comments, please give proper attribution and proper context. That is my view based on experience with similar situations to this one, but I have also made clear that I have given my support to clarifying the current sanctions, rather than to expanding them. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AussieLegend
There really does need to be greater clarification regarding this, since much of the problem involves Andy's participation at TfDs, especially when he nominates and then sometimes re-nominates the same templates without attempting to involve himself in discussion with end users or maintainers of the template. Quite often we see "Redundant to....." as the rationale, when in fact this is not the case. An example is Infobox Ireland station which, along with Infobox NI station, Andy nominated last year. The result of the discussion was that Infobox Ireland station was kept and Infobox NI station was merged into it. Not satisfied with the result, as has happened before, Andy has now re-nominated Infobox Ireland station today. Forcing the community to go through the same process over and over until he achieves the desired result can be seen to be disruptive, and this is what forces people to file AE Requests, especially since deletion of an infobox can be interpreted as removing it from an article, even if it is replaced by another. If the restriction placed on Andy is only applicable to articles, then this needs to be set in stone. If this isn't done, then more AE Requests are likely to be filed as Andy does nominate a lot of infoboxes for deletion or merging. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

- Yes, reducing the number of templates can be beneficial but that's not always the case. For example, Andy has now nominated Infobox Rome episode for deletion (again). In the process, and regardless of the outcome of the TfD, he has removed code from the template that now opens the way for somebody to justifiably create two additional templates regardless of the TfD outcome. Andy has a narrow focus when it comes to templates and doesn't always look at the big picture. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

- The wording is an improvement, but I don't think it is enough. One of the things that I've been complaining about for some time is that Andy almost never (99.9% of the time) seems to engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging. The restriction would seem to encourage him not to engage in discussion which, to me at least, seems counterproductive. An example is the nomination for Infobox Australian road, which was specifically kept after extended discussion, including an RfC attended by members of the Highways and Australian Roads projects. If Andy had discussed this first, the TfD might not have happened. I feel Andy's restriction should require that he engage in discussion before nominating infoboxes. At the very least it should encourage such discussion but, as it stands, it encourages him to nominate and sort it out at TfD, which can be a combative venue, and Andy seems to be taking advantage of this based on his recent nominations. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Does replacing one infobox with another in an article qualify as "Andy testing the boundaries". There has been no consensus for this change. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Or this. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your accusations of mud-slinging. It's been said here that Andy's restriction extends only to article space and here we have two edits in article space where he has effectively added an infobox. The restriction does not make it clear that changing is not part of the restriction. The change he made doesn't make sense when all of the related articles use a different infobox and his change removed content from display. He made that change specifically as a test. He could have easily created the example in his user space or at Template:Infobox Rome episode/testcases where there is a side by side comparison.

You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? No, it's simply common courtesy to discuss use of a template with the end users first. Andy avoids that at all costs. He doesn't have to "search around for all the people", it's usually just a matter of going to the template's talk page to identify the end user project and opening a discussion on the project's talk page. Andy is so inconsiderate that he won't even leave a simple note, leaving others to do it for him. He refuses to even add infobox to TfD notices because the option is not available in Twinkle, which regularly upsets other users. Andy selectively forgets that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and it's that attitude that has resulted in an extremely long block log and sanctions. His negative interactions with so many editors necessitates making the wording of those sanctions very clear because not everyone can find the long discussions that lead to those sanctions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754's posts haven't really explained the extent of the issue with Infobox Australian road. The timeline of the discussions is as follows: Andy is well of the history of this infobox, and the differences of opinions, and still chose to take it to TfD instead of starting a discussion with the two projects, whose relationship has been more or less harmonious until now. His actions in this case are disruptive. Ironically, while Rschen7754 and I are on opposite sides regarding merging, we seem to agree regarding his attitude, which extends to other templates, as evidenced by the various discussions at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 and Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 22 August 2010 - start of a lengthy discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian road about converting Australian articles to use Infobox road
 * 13 September 2010 - TfD after the nominator failed to achieve his aims at Template talk:Infobox Australian road. TfD was withdrawn by nom after significant opposition and ongoing discussion on template's talk page. Nomination at this time was polarising given the ongoing discussion that was not complete.
 * 31 December 2011 - Nominated at TfD by Pigsonthewing. Lengthy discussion and significant opposition to the merge resulted in TfD being closed as "no consensus".
 * May 2013 - RfC proposal that Infobox Australian road be merged with Infobox road. At the beginning of the proposal there was some merit in the proposal but significant improvements to the infobox resulted in the RfC, which was attended by members of both the Highways and Australian roads projects (with a visit from Pigsonthewing), being abandoned quite amicably. Discussion on this even extended to IRC.
 * May 2013 - present - ongoing improvements to infobox

"he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise" - He's also damaged templates and his expertise has also caused detriment to the project. He tends to think from a coder's point of view, making arbitrary decisions about what templates should or should not contain, without considering the effect on end users who have to use the templates. As a recent example, he recently made a change to Infobox Rome episode, which he's nominated for merging, and that change opens the way for two more templates to be quite legitimately created, regardless of whether or not the template is merged. His nominations are not always consistent with best practice. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Andy is well-known for his technical abilities, especially related to templates such as infoboxes. It is therefore not unexpected that he should be regularly involved with clean-up of the vast proliferation of templates that perform near-identical functions. This request was sparked off by Andy asking that Infobox Ireland disused station (used 314 times) and Infobox Ireland station (used 187 times) be merged into Infobox station (used 16,002 times) as it is easier to maintain and use one template than three. In this case the generic template can specify the country and could have the date when the station stopped being used. It is perfectly reasonable to have these sort of debates and that is the purpose of TfD. Look at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 29 and see if you think asking for a debate is unreasonable.

What is unacceptable here is some editors' attempts to stifle debate by using an unrelated ArbCom decision to remove an "opponent" from nominating templates that they OWN. Andy does nominate a lot of templates for merge and deletion, but that's is not disruptive, per se - for heaven's sake there are thousands of templates that are only used in a handful of articles where a more generic and widely-used template is already available. Andy is one of the few people who is willing to spend time rationalising this sort of proliferation and - inconvenient as it may be to the OWNers - he performs a valuable job in this field. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You accept that other editors have caused problems yet you are trying to remove just Andy from template discussions. So what if "there were already plans in motion to merge some redundant templates"? you can't be the sole arbiter of who participates in those discussions and Andy is not only entitled to do so, but is a useful catalyst in moving forward such discussions. If templates were merged in a poor fashion, the answer is to FIXIT, not blame the person who pointed out the problem. As Humphrey Appleby would say 'to be bold' is one of those irregular verbs: "I edit boldly; you edit problematically; he/she edits disruptively". As for unrelated - yes TfD is utterly unrelated to adding or removing infoxes from articles. If you want to make a case for sanctions concerning TfD, then file a case; you'll need diffs, of course, not this sort of "guilt by mud-slinging" that some have been engaged in here.

@ArbCom: Here's yet another confirming instance that your faulty decision last year has done nothing but paint a target on some of the participants: you sanction someone for one thing and it's open season on them every time they get into a disagreement with other editors. Isn't it time you realised you screwed up by taking sides in a content dispute? or do you intend to repeat the same mistakes again and again? --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy's track record at TfD shows that he is concerned with merging little-used templates into more generic ones. In most cases this is a good thing. The effect of a successful merge is normally that one template becomes a redirect to the other. This clearly does not result in the removal or addition of a template to any article. It was never an issue at the Infobox RfArb case that there was a problem with Andy replacing one infobox with another - and we've even had this argument at Clarification and it was clearly agreed that this was not part of his restriction. So no, asking for a template to be merged into another really, really doesn't have any relationship to the sanctions imposed on Andy and I worry that you're asking for an already answered question to be re-litigated.

Yes, it would require a lot more wordsmithing because "prohibited from ... discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added [to] or removed from ... [a] group of articles" would include project pages (is that your intention?) as well as directly contradicting "allowed ... to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion. since the former is one of the things that people discuss at TfD. Even though Andy has never, to my knowledge, suggested at TfD that a template should be removed (he is always looking to merge them into more common ones), your wording would prevent him from taking part in debating one of his nominations as soon as someone suggested deleting the template. I seriously hope that wasn't your intention, either. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Replacing one infobox with another is definitely not part of Andy's restrictions and that question has already been asked and answered in the negative as part of a previous Clarification Request. We already know it's not testing any boundaries and your suggestion amounts to mud-slinging at Andy in the hope that some of it sticks. Do your homework before trying to extend sanctions by the back-door. Replacing Infobox Rome episode by Infobox television episode is an utterly sensible improvement to an article - do you advocate a template for each and every television series in existence? He doesn't need your permission before editing; and suggesting that editors have to seek consensus before making an uncontroversial edit is just the usual trick of OWNers who don't want outsiders messing with their precious articles. "Engage in discussion with template maintainers or end users before nominating infoboxes for deletion or merging" over my dead body: you just want to put obstacles in the way of any editor who dares to edit your articles. You want Andy to search around for all the people who edit your templates or use them before being allowed to start a discussion at Templates for Discussion? ridiculous. You also need to understand what is meant by "Templates for Discussion": it's the place where templates are discussed. You want to have that discussion on the pages of a WikiProject, rather than on the pages where we are meant to discuss templates. TfD is the correct venue because it brings together members of Wikiprojects and other editors who may have a different view to have the discussion. That's healthy, and requiring a pre-discussion on the pages of what may be a moribund Wikiproject is not a sensible option. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
The arbcom decision was clear that it related to articles. Andy is doing helpful wikignoming with his TfDs and this is simply a witchhunt. His efforts are beneficial to the project as he largely is finding long-abandoned templates or those with few transclusions. He defends his actions and is remaining remarkably civil in his responses (which are at times a bit pointed, but he's yet to resort to name-calling; something that cannot be said about other editors who oppose him). There is an OWNership problem here and a serious lack of goodwill. This needs to be closed with a clarification that only articles are subject to this sanction, and frankly, given Andy's use to the project (I asked him to repair infobox horseracing personality not long ago), I think it is time his restrictions are lifted altogether. If the project wants to avoid drama, then avoid setting people up as scapegoats. Montanabw (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I find the people crying "off with his head" to be quite troubling. Per WP:BAIT, I think Andy has been remarkably civil.  And per WP:BOOMERANG, I strongly suggest that people in glass houses of ownership and rude, incivil behavior (Francis and DePiep, for example) should not be throwing stones!   Montanabw (talk)  00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

and others: I am very troubled that a legitimate content contributor with actual expertise in the area is being considered for a ban in that very area of expertise. This is a misguided attempt to boomerang on what the original filing party wanted to accomplish, which was to clarify the parameters of the restriction. I have found Andy very helpful and quite willing to be collaborative and cooperative in genuine attempts to improve content. Andy is an individual who has been given awards for his work by WMF by none other than Jimbo, Andy is an individual who is a wikipedian in residence in his home country, with a wealth of knowledge to contribute to the project. It just seems beyond the pale that a small herd of disgruntled individuals who want to preserve their WP:OWN little Balkanized domain are trying to run him off for things like suggesting at TfD that we don't really need separate infoboxes for each of the hundreds of mass transit systems throughout the world where one will do. In the face of people calling him incompetent, trolling his every TfD to !vote oppose with the same ill-will-biased personal attacks every time, I am really quite impressed that he has consistently replied with fair arguments, a modicum of basic civility, and just the slightest touch of snark. He hasn't even called anyone a "c--t". (Which recently has - appropriately - been deemed a forgivable misstep once the totality of the circumstances were considered) These bullies can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. Montanabw (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ::perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about.  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) As I've recused from the issue, I'm moving my comment.  DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
I have known Andy for a few years, and neatly cooperated on a couple of projects without making a big hooha; however I only know of this request due to preparing my own amendment for a different matter. CT Cooper above raises a reasonable point of distance, however if there is a problem with working collegiately then this does not need Arbcom's authority to resolve, the conventional civility and dispute resolution procedures are sufficient.

Speaking as an editor "haunted" and occasionally gibed by a past Arbcom case, I can well believe the views expressed here that the prior case involving Andy may be used inappropriately. This does not benefit the encyclopedia in the long run, and as Arbcom has often stated, normal collegiate resolution processes with any action within the capability of administrators should be preferred and exhausted before resorting to the supreme device of the Arbcom stick. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "everything related to infoboxes" would be unhelpful as Andy would have to worry that any edit to an article with an infobox could end up being a block discussion. I expect the committee is wise enough based on the history of past problem cases, to stick to well defined and constrained motions to avoid the unintended consequence of driving editors off Wikipedia altogether, with phrases such as "widely construed" being used literally as a form of Russell's paradox by overly keen wikilawyers. --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
IMO the editors who were restricted well over a year ago here have more than followed their sanctions. Andy has avoided the article end of adding and removing infoboxes, and has still remained dedicated to improving the project through his technical skills. It appears to me that even though Arbcom (of that day) did not place the all so common "broadly construed" to its remedy, the bulk of disruption comes from those looking for a thread with which to create a noose. While the continual drag ya back to AE/ARCA is entertaining from a soap opera point of view, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is: Remove the restrictions, and you remove the drama mongers out looking for a lynching party. — Ched : ?  17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Question. Many if not most arb cases contain a clause stating that after a certain amount of time (often 12 months/1 year) editors are able to appeal their restrictions.  I wasn't able to find that provision in the infobox case, can someone tell me why that is?  The facts are plain that it was those who favored the inclusion of an infobox who were sanctioned, those who opposed them were "reminded and/or admonished" - and that's fine, evidence/findings etc.  I get that.  I know that as a 3rd party that I can't request the lifting of restrictions - but I am wondering ... just how long does the committee intend to impose restrictions on those who favor having infoboxes in articles?  Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @DGG. With respect sir, I am somewhat confused.  Per your comment "What I personally would do is simple: I have definite opinions on the subject of infoboxes, that they are useless if not uniform, and I would have recused from the entire case." which you made here, I must ask if you are now un-recusing with regard to this topic? — Ched :  ?  14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
The arbitration refers to articles. If wording needs to be explicit for those confused by the arbitration wording that seems  fine. However, this should not be an opportunity nor is this the appropriate place to rewrite the arbitration and expand restrictions, and is it not a place to implement further  restrictions based on opinion as for example, here, "However, it is my view that editors should respond to restrictions by finding an entirely new area to edit, and not edit around them, regardless of whether it's permissible or not." This was a simple request; perhaps it is best on multiple levels to keep it that way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC))

Statement by DGG
''I'm commenting as an editor, not an arb. I consider myself recused on this issue''
 * As a general statement, perhaps it is precisely those experts in a field who are not willing to follow community norms in that field who can sometimes be most effctively disruptive, more so than people working in a field they know little about. I'm therefore not sure that expertise with infoboxes is relevant to this request.
 * As a specific comment, I agree the wording could ideally be more precise, but I don't see how to do this without causing other ambiguities, so perhaps the existing general statement is best.    DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
This following this is why the motion is not a good idea. --Rschen7754 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, I do think the templates should be merged and would share Andy's opinion, but his renomination only served to further polarize the matter and upset people. He shouldn't have been the one to do it, just like I will never bring that template to TFD either, except because of the past drama regarding him and infoboxes, it's even worse. --Rschen7754 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram
In statements above there is a call or two for other examples of Pigsonthewing's pushing the boundaries of sanctions. Here's one: Pigsonthewing pursuing an article deletion campaign during 2014 at least on articles using custom infoboxes (i.e. using generic infobox applied to a custom situation) or using lesser-used other infoboxes, working from a worklist of articles having such infoboxes. I don't know whether or not it amounts to Pigsonthewing's having directly violated the sanction terms, or not. But it was pushing the boundaries around templates and in my opinion it caused widespread damage in Wikipedia.

I noted during 2014 that Pigsonthewing pursued a campaign to delete numerous articles by AFDs, in which he nominated mostly older articles in various topic areas, but was obstinate in not explaining what was his motivation and what was the commonality, when asked directly by editors in good faith concerned about the damage being done. AFDs by their nature are negative experiences to the article developers. In my view this campaign was damaging to a swath of Wikipedia editors and to content development in seemingly random areas; one specific consequence was that an editor User:ScottHW developing content about community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, was treated badly and I believe was turned off from contributing. PigsontheWing would not explain the reasons why he nominated specific articles for deletion, would not respond to reasonable questions about whether he performed wp:BEFORE or not, and would not comment about what he was going to further nominate for AFD. He was (I recall, and can look for diffs) derisive about the view by me and others that he was working from a list of summer camps, for example. He would not explain his true motivation, and in this was withholding and difficult for other editors. This prevented me and others from developing an alternative campaign that would be less damaging to wikipedia fabric (like I have advocated and/or been involved in developing in other AFD areas). I also previously and at later times experienced Pigsonthewing as unnecessarily withholding and difficult, e.g. at a later time he complicated a situation by being unwilling to simply clarify to me that he was not an administrator). Within a set of AFDs about summer camps, anyhow, I specifically linked to the others, which were: What they had in common, which I was not aware of, besides their topics, was that they were developed in an era when editors used user-created custom infoboxes, and the articles still all had them, and they were all listed in PigsontheWing's worklist.
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Pathfinder (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Sitka Fine Arts Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Modin
 * Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk
 * Articles for deletion/Camp Rockmont for Boys

Note of disclosure: PigsontheWing objected to my linking of the summer camp AFDs together in some of the AFDs, by calling my linking to be violation of wp:canvassing guideline (which it was not) and also by asserting that in my referring to the fact that one of the camps was NRHP-listed I had violated a restriction on my own editing (which it might have been, though I had not believed it to be when I mentioned it, and as a consequence I responded to his objection by deleting and/or striking comments that he objected to). This proceeded mostly at User talk:Doncram. Also I was not during any of this time aware of sanctions on PigsontheWing about userboxes or of any of the arbitration or past history. I had had some previous negative interaction with PigsontheWing about use of "start" templates in conjunction with an NRHP infobox, however. And I thought he was an administrator and hence generally deemed to be highly trusted by the community. My belief that he was an adminstrator was a factor in May 2014 in interaction that led to me opening an edit warring proceeding, whose result was that he and I were both blocked (some info at User talk:Doncram. In that incident it was an obstacle that he did not promptly disclose that he was not an administrator.  Another obstacle was that he made obfuscating assertions about the location of a discussion (some info at User talk:Doncram).  I am not sure but I believe that he and I have not much or at all interacted since then.  About my posting here, late in this proceeding:  I have watchlisted here and have occasionally noticed this proceeding going on, and just happened now to browse it further and then to see more connections.

Around then PigsontheWing prodded and succeeded in eliminating numerous older articles having custom infoboxes or lesser-used infoboxes. In cases when the original article creator was around and noticed and removed the prod, or when others removed the prod, AFDs were started.
 * Articles for deletion/South Asian Federation of Accountants, July 19 2014 AFDd by Pigsonthewing (one of those with terse nomination "No evidence of notability")
 * Articles for deletion/BETT, prodded by Pigsonthewing, prod removed by me, then AFDd by Pigsonthewing
 * Articles for deletion/Hill Farm Community Garden, had been prodded by PigsontheWing, AFD opened by another, PigsontheWing voted delete.
 * Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden, whose custom infobox was changed to park infobox in this first edit at the article by PigsontheWing, before Pigsonthewing prodded it and then opened AFD.
 * Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, a follow-on that did not itself involve an infobox, but which extended damage in my view (as it further over-ruled the local editor from developing content where they preferred)
 * A series of Isle of Man articles in November 2014, which I believe were on Pigsonthewing's worklist, but anyhow which I believe were targeted for using a little-used template, Infobox Isle of Man TT course: Crosby Cross-roads, Windy Corner, Glenlough and others.

The scope of Pigsonthewings 2014 infobox-related article deletion campaign includes most of the 48 articles that AFDSTATS shows Pigsonthewing himself nominated for deletion, from August 17, 2013 to December 2014. (Of 48, 21 of those were deleted; 21 were kept by Keep or by No consensus;  others were redirected)

But the scope further includes:
 * Numerous more prodded by Pigsonthewing and then deleted without AFD, in 2014 (I recall seeing a good number of these in Pigsonthewing's contributions, in progress. These could be found in Pigsonthewing's edit history and reviewed for whether infoboxes were involved by administrators, but not by me)
 * Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then AFDd by Pigsonthewing then deleted, in 2014, such as Articles for deletion/Mark Beech (politician), where also i cannot see the original article to determine if it had a custom or lesser-used infobox.
 * Some number prodded by Pigsonthewing then deleted after an AFD opened by someone else, in 2014 (so not included in Pigsonthewing's AFD nomionations)
 * Whatever Pigsonthewing did in 2013 and before, including, e.g. about lesser-used Infobox University of Notre Dame residence hall, Pigsonthewing's May 3, 2013 Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

In the prods and AFD nominations of this campaign, editors might disagree about whether Pigsonthewing had adequate justification to seek deletion on stated grounds they were under-referenced, depending on their perspective about the importance of wp:BEFORE. Pigsonthewing's prod or AFD nominations were terse, often merely asserting "No evidence of notability". Among them were numerous articles, however, were in fact on quite notable topics, as documented in some of the AFDs, where notability could/should have been ascertained by performing wp:BEFORE. Within and around the AFDs, Pigsonthewing lashed out (as at me) and expressed himself strongly and that was damaging I believe.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealed his motivation and worklist throughout the article deletion campaign. I am not aware of Pigsonthewing ever disclosing his motivation or his working from a worklist of articles having custom or less-used infoboxes. He refused to answer questions getting at his list. I figured out later that he was working from a worklist on infoboxes, I think when I noticed in his contributions during fall 2014 that he edited at the worklist itself, which was in User or Wikipedia space. Later still, I looked for the list again, and was not able to find it. I presume that PigsontheWing eventually arranged for the worklist to be deleted. (Update: The worklist is/was User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox ) That was still before I was aware of Pigsonthewing having any template-related sanctions.

I believe Pigsonthewings' concealment was damaging to Wikipedia in that it prevented reasonable questioning of his motivation in the prods and AFDs, which would have been legitimate to question in each one, and which could have led editors to explore article merits more and to change the outcome in at least some cases. Or to allow editors to consider clarification or review of Pigsonthewing's sanction. And it prevented the possibility of other editors reviewing his edits, or working collaboratively to contain the damage to editors and to content, e.g. by having an RFC about custom infoboxes, e.g. by collectively reviewing the worklist and seeking alternatives to deletion such as combining standalone articles into new list-articles, or, e.g. by simply by changing the custom or lesser-used infobox usage to a different Pigsonthewing-approved alternative infobox, where such was available, so that Pigsonthewing would no longer target them.

-- do ncr  am  20:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Thryduulf: Not "irrelevant" at all. After being banned in late 2013 with "1.1) Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", Pigsonthewing engaged in a campaign to remove infoboxes he didn't like from mainspace by a selective campaign to remove entire articles.  And he concealed it and was disruptive and caused damage to editors (including me and the Nebraska editor who has not edited since.)  This does seem to me to be in violation of the intent of the ban, and it went under the radar, and it should not be condoned.  And in one edit i linked above, he arguably removed one type of infobox, and added a different type of infobox, which is arguably two violations of the ban.  In that case and others he also PRODed or opened AFDs or voted "Delete" and otherwise discussed the removal of infoboxes (his apparent real intent), though couching it as removing the entire articles.


 * To the arbitrators: I suggest the original ban should be modified to clearly ban this related behavior.  It would be reasonable to clarify/extend the ban, perhaps: "Also with respect to articles containing infoboxes, Pigsonthewing is banned from initiating PRODs, from initiating AFDs, and from discussing the removal of such articles."  From my review of Pigsonthewing's AFD nominations history, the majority of that is about articles having infoboxes he did not like.  Perhaps the clarification could be limited to articles having infoboxes of the type that Pigsonthewing seems to dislike, but not sure how that could be worded.  I don't think I or anyone is irreplaceable, and I am not aware why it would be especially important to preserve Pigsonthewing's voice in unrelated AFDs that could be a side impact. -- do  ncr  am  20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found Pigsonthewing's worklist of articles having custom infoboxes as of April 2, 2014, and Twinkle PROD log showing its use, often rapid-fire. Redlinks show effects on articles in scattered areas.  Of summer camp ones, I note this one for which Google news search quickly shows me the topic is Wikipedia-notable and it should not have been deleted.  One PRODed and AFD-targeted summer camp article eventually stricken from worklist after another editor applied infobox organization.  One struck from worklist after Pigsonthewing changed custom infobox to infobox park, which lost info, may not have been a good fit, but alternatives to deletion push existed.  Overall, the pursuit of article deletions with concealment of Pigsonthewing's motivation foisted distruption in scattered areas, removed valid content and/or turned off content editors, and prevented rational discussion.  While Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes highlighted effects of infobox campaigns upon great writers' content contributors to feature-worthy articles, this deletion campaign hit scattered others, with same theme of a technical focus by one editor foisted upon content-focused others.
 * How about narrower clarification that Pigsonthewing to be banned from deletion activity on articles having "direct calls" to infobox template? -- do ncr  am  16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In immediate response, Pigsonthewing just returned to the worklist ("Thanks for the reminder!"), also requests an update to the worklist from User:John of Reading. and proceeds. E.g. in several edits just termed "CE" makes substantial reduction of infobox while converting its type. And P's edit effectively removes an infobox from an article, by stripping it down to a ridiculous one-item box. wp:POINTY, and isn't this essentially a violation of the clear ban that Pigsonthewing should not remove infoboxes from articles? -- do ncr  am  18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to understand why Pigsonthewing uses opaque edit summaries of "CE" and why he won't respond to reasonable questions in AFDs and otherwise, about his actions and goals. Because while he is banned from discussing the removals or additions of infoboxes.  And he is banned from adding infoboxes, he apparently feels nonetheless he can remove infoboxes (was this intended?) and he perhaps he can "convert" one type of infobox to another type (was this intended?), even if doing so reduces information.  Seems to me that "converting", is effectively removing one kind of infobox and adding another infobox.  And he just cannot explain what he is doing?  So, for example when an editor inquires just now on his Talk page, is he technically in compliance by not answering, or by being cryptic, e.g.

removing the question with "you thought wrong", in answer to inquiry whether he "had been asked not to edit or add infoboxes"]. So he is allowed to edit with deliberately uninformative edit summaries like "CE", and he is required NOT to explain what he is doing, as he follows a worklist bringing him to encounter diverse editors on diverse topics???


 * I don't get it. Could the arbitrators please clarify whether Pigsonthewing is allowed to edit and remove infoboxes in articles?  And is he allowed a loophole of being allowed to "convert" infoboxes, i.e. removing one infobox and adding another type of infobox?  Even if the replacement loses some information?  Or strips it so information in the new infobox is a fraction of the info in the original?  And further that he is prohibited from discussing these actions?  Or is he allowed to discuss "editing" but not address questions about adding or removing?  Even in an AFD where his motivation is apparently the removal of the infobox, from a worklist?  It seems to me like he should not be allowed to do what he cannot discuss.  He's not an administrator, but all experienced editors should be willing to explain their actions.  If they can't explain they should not be undertaking the actions. -- do  ncr  am  21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Floq
Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think.

So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE and WP:ACCAORWHATEVERTHESHORTCUTISFORTHISPAGE don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either. So the proposed motion seems like a pretty simple solution, and I'm surprised it is not passing. It is not granting him an "exception", it is "clarifying" the previous remedy.

It seems odd to consider expanding the remedy wider than it was before when there's no real evidence that Andy's participation at TFD has been a problem. However, if you want to get evidence about his TFD behavior first, I suppose I won't argue with that. But then I'd suggest narrowing the wording of the scope of the review (and the scope of evidence you want) more than it is now, to narrowly focus on TFD. And keep in mind that if no serious problems are found, you're not deciding whether to relax a remedy, you're deciding whether to tighten it.

p.s. I was pointed to this discussion by a participant in it, but it's not canvassing since she and I don't really agree on the infobox case as a whole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw

 * Support adding the word "articles": This should be simple, adding one word to eliminate the drama of people who disagree with Andy trying to play "gotcha" over his legitimate area of expertise.   The infobox case involved decisions involving articles, where the question of including or not including infoboxes is wholly different from the technical aspects of infobox templates. Basically, the IDONTLIKEIT crowd who resists Andy's good faith attempts to clean up the mess that the template areas is in needs to realize that Andy disagreeing with them is not a crime and this clarification would help immensely to ratchet down the mob drama that seems to follow Andy everywhere. I vehemently oppose any attempt to increase Andy's restrictions, he's salvaged infobox templates for me on several occasions, the project benefits from his expertise.   Montanabw (talk)  20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from John Carter
Regarding the first proposal below, would it also include any articles specifically created by Andy with an infobox in it from the beginning? I don't know how often it might happen that Andy creates new articles, but it would seem to be covered by the proposed sanction, depending on how one defines "adding". John Carter (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse obviously. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The purpose of restrictions is to reduce disruption. It doesn't much matter whether the disruption is on articles or talk pages, or wherever. If his contributions in non-article space have not been disruptive, there may be benefit in formalising a narrower scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies  talk 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My recollection was that we crafted the remedy to stop the infobox wars. Those were mainly around adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and that's where Andy needed to be taken away from. I personally supported allowing him to stay in policy debates on the topic, though that didn't pass. I'd certanly support such a change. Worm TT( talk ) 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As Roger says, arbcom restrictions are meant to stop drama, not breathe new life into it. Considering Andy's recent attempts at testing the boundaries of his restriction and the community's uncertainty as to where exactly these boundaries lie, I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The restriction is fine as written. Decline. AGK  [•] 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The restriction is not fine as written, as evidenced by the fact that it's the second time in less than two months that we have been requested to clarify its scope. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is evidence that people are struggling to grasp the restriction, not that it warrants amendment. It is unreasonable to agree that a sentence as simple as the one in question is ambiguous. My advice is to discard the invented interpretation that this restriction applies only to the mainspace; I don't see where this has come from or why it was arrived at. As I said, the restriction is fine as written. Any confusion about it is difficult to sympathise with in this case, given the remedy's clarity.  AGK  [•] 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case this is still active on 1 January, I'll note here for the record that I am recused as an arbitrator for this case. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about something like "Pigsonthewing is prohibited from adding an infobox to any article, or participating in discussions concerning whether an infobox should be added or removed from either a specific article or group of articles. He is explicitly allowed to edit infobox templates to improve their functionality, and to nominate infobox templates for discussion at templates for discussion."  Needs some wordsmithing, but I've never liked the wording of the initial restriction, and while I don't think Andy has gamed it, the wording has still led to drama.  Some more explicit language would be good, even though it leaves the line of what Andy may and may not do the same.  (I think enough time has passed to allow an exception for putting infoboxes in articles he has recently created himself, but that might be beyond the scope of this request.)   Courcelles 23:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "participating in discussions related to whether an article or group of articles should include an infobox". The locus of dispute here was binary, whether an article should or should not have an infobox; not whether it should use "template:infobox foo" or "template:infobox bar".  Courcelles 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like Courcelles' suggestion, though I think Callanecc has a good point that "to improve their functionality" should be dropped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also recused from this request. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially I agree with Salvio. I consider some of the renominations at TfD disruptive, and think that both nominating and discussing template related infoboxes there should be included in the ban.  I'd like to find some language permitting technical changes, but I can't see how to make it unambiguous.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I had earlier stated I would recuse from this case.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend more toward agreeing with Courcelles and WTT. I don't see how any of these nominations were deliberately disruptive (the fact that a discussion turned contentious does not necessarily mean it should never have been started), and the original restrictions clearly indicate a restriction on whether or not an article should have an infobox, not maintenance tasks on infoboxes. I would have to see more evidence of disruption on Andy's part in the areas of maintaining infoboxes before I would be willing to consider expanding the restriction, and I don't see justification for that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe scope of the restriction is the wrong wording...but regardless, if we pass the motion as is, no administrator at ANI is going to feel like they can restrict him in the areas we explicitly allow. As I stated, we can achieve the same by saying that it only applies to the article and talk spaces, without explicitly allowing. I'm also not fully on board that he's been completely cooperative in areas outside the ban, as some diffs here appear different. There is simply not enough information here to see whether explicitly allowing those is healthy for the community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Infoboxes)
There are 15 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 Abstaining; a majority is 7.


 * Support
 * 1) This seems to have totally stalled out, so proposed as a motion to stimulate new discussion.  The goal here is to neither widen or narrow the restrictions, but to reduce drama by clearing out some grey area, along lines of how the AE admins have been enforcing the existing remedy.  Copyedit as necessary. Courcelles 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've made some changes based on your feedback. (WHich I think I can do, seeing as how I'm the only vote at the moment.)  If any arbs prefer the older version, feel free to revert. Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)  Courcelles 01:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) it works -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  01:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * No, Andy needs to be topic banned from everything related to infoboxes, not granted exceptions which make it easier for him to act disruptively all over again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Pigsonthewing is a valued contributor across many areas, but has what many see as an uncollaborative approach when dealing with infoboxes. Remedy 1.1 has been interpreted as applying only to the space in which the original dispute occurred (articles), but various editors above have suggested the same uncollaborative approach still exists at TfD's. The remedy is silent about where it applies: as it was based on user conduct, it should be applied where that conduct occurs. I note there is disagreement about whether Pigsonthewing is being uncollaborative at TfD, but the above evidence section shows the point is at least arguable. I don't therefore support a formal narrowing of the restriction via the second sentence of the above motion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I also can't work with the second half of this motion. We don't have enough evidence (or this might not even the proper venue) presented to determine whether Pigsonthewing is constructively editing or not to what we are explicitly allowing by the proposed motion. It then prevents people from taking it to ANI or other appropriate venues to get restrictions if they are needed. It just brings it right back to ARCA which is why were here in the first place. I could see a motion restricting it to the article and talk spaces without exceptions, as that doesn't change the scope of the restriction. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We have two options. We can reword the topic ban in line with what evidence we have. It is obvious that the status quo is going to cause us future issues. The other option is to open a quick review of the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review where we get evidence for a week and then post a PD the next. This review would have to be very narrow in scope or it would get bogged down quickly. I would support opening a review if a group of arbs don't have enough evidence to work off of here. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guerillero. This has been sitting here for weeks with no prospect of proceeding on the current evidence. Rather than trying to interpret the previous decision, let's consider this extremely specific issue as a narrowly written case. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Per below. L Faraone  22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Motion (Infoboxes Review)
Enacted - S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 13 active arbs with 3 recused and 0 abstaining; a majority is 6.


 * Support
 * 1) First choice -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep, though the question is probably too open-ended,   Roger Davies  talk 06:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  Given my statement above, it's the only appropriate way to address the concerns I and Euryalus raised since I feel there was insufficient chance to post diffs on this topic above. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Euryalus (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) A focussed review would be worthwhile here. L Faraone  22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm not a fan of this approach, but I don't think it's getting resolved any other way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Okay, in the absence of any other way to get momentum in moving this forward, fine. Courcelles 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to spend 4 more weeks on this; the evidence is already up there, the existing remedy is sloppy, and the manner in which the AE admins have decided to enforce it works. This proposal is a time-sink for all involved, whose end result will be either something at least somewhat similar to what I've already proposed, or a unnecessary dramatic tightening of the restrictions in place. The latter seems to be more the history of Reviews and cases opened under ArbCom initiative, I don't think anyone is voting FOR that, mind, but it seems to happen. So, oppose as a massive time-sink for this request that is already way too long in the tooth. Courcelles 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain