Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by EvergreenFir at 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification NorthBySouthBaranof
 * diff of notification HJ_Mitchell
 * diff of notification East718
 * diff of notification DHeyward
 * diff of notification EncyclopediaBob
 * diff of notification Retartist

Notification of other potentially interested users
 * Notice to the BLP talk page
 * Ryk72 notified as they were mentioned in my statement
 * Masem notified as a potentially interested user added by
 * ColorOfSuffering notified as a potentially interested user added by
 * Risker notified as a potentially interested user added by

Statement by EvergreenFir
There is apparent disagreement among users and admins on the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK. This stems from the removal of a link on Talk:Gamergate controversy by that was originally added by. Because NorthBySouthBaranof is topic banned from Gamergate, this removal resulted in an Enforcement Request against NorthBySouthBaranof that was closed by with no action per WP:BANEX. The basis for the removal was WP:BLP because the link contained very problematic content, the nature of which can be seen in the enforcement request. There was also an Enforcement Request against Retartist for posting the link that was closed by HJ Mitchell with a topic ban. As a result of this enforcement request, the link and other links were REVDELed by per WP:BLP and REVDEL guidelines.

As a direct result of these enforcement requests, a discussion on BLP's talk page (link to specific section) was opened by not named as party due to max of 7 parties, but will be informed of this ARBCOM regarding the interpretation of WP:BLPTALK.

BLPTALK currently says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks."

Despite the actions of the admins HJ Mitchell and East718, users and  expressed in my understanding; please correct me if I'm mistaken strong disagreement with the use of BANEX in this manner, suggesting that any links should be allowed to be posted on article talk pages if they are being discussed. I expressed the belief that BLPTALK need tweaking and that not all links are allowed to be posted on non-article spaces (e.g., links from Stormfront should never be posted as they violate BLP policies).

BLPTALK needs tweaking. The link that prompted this on GG was not just "contentious", it was libel. BLPTALK should reflect that discussion of RS or at least something that approaches RS (which is also key as the link from GG was not RS) is fine. If, for example, HuffPo has an article with some claims about a politician committing fraud, then the talk page is the right venue to discuss that article. However, not all links are covered by BLPTALK, or shouldn't be. Links to Stormfront would never be acceptable. Links that contain libel or highly disparaging content should never be allowed. Folks seem to be misunderstanding "contentious material" and misrepresenting the example in BLP. Let's clarify it so that if (1) matches the rest of the BLP policy's intent and (2) matches how BLP is being enforced.

Interpretations of this portion of the BLP policy are clearly divergent. Admins and REVDELers appear to interpret the language differently than some experienced user. Specifically, the current wording of BLPTALK does not explicitly state if some links that would be excluded from articles as BLP violations are also excluded from non-article space. Moreover, it's unclear if BANEX covers the removal of links from non-article spaces. I request that the ARBCOM clarify this issue as part of the BLP decision for the sake of users and admins.

Edit: In response to, I wish to be clear that I 100% agree with his and other admins' assessments of the situation and reading of the BLP policy. However, BLPTALK is still rather ambiguous and given the push back from other users I feel that ARBCOM weighing in on this issue and/or suggesting clarified wording of BLPTALK is needed. I chose this venue because of the past ruling and felt an RfC would not be the appropriate way to address this.


 * 's statement is an example of exactly why this needs clarification. It seems the arbs feel that some links are clearly not okay (which I agree with), but the "cut off" is what's blurry here. If arbs are unable to rule on this, what course of action would be recommended? An RfC invites all users to comment, including inexperienced ones. Given that this topic is (1) one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and (2) the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, it seems that ARBCOM should be the one to clarify it and make substantial changes to it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
I think it's fairly apparent what the letter and spirit of the policy are intended to do — prevent the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon of character assassination or a tool of online trolls. To that end, policy demands that we treat all matters relating to living people with the utmost sensitivity and care. A hopelessly-unreliable source (such as, for instance, a wholly-anonymous webpage, a personal blog or a series of putative screenshots) that contains or is intended to present highly-negative claims, allegations or inferences about living people has no business anywhere on the encyclopedia. It cannot possibly aid the writing of the encyclopedia in any way, because it is categorically forbidden from use in any way. Anything which even stems from it is effectively fruit of the poison tree. Suggesting, as one editor did, that an inflammatory, anonymous screed full of unsupported attacks, disproven allegations and outright lies about living people (the so-called "dossier") is good background reading (for editors) evinces a clear and present misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. This sense is longstanding and core to our policy's ultimate goal: ensuring that what the encyclopedia publishes about living people is well-supported, fair, sensitively-written and unsensational — all stemming from the use of highly-reliable sources and the avoidance of slander, gossip, whisper campaigns and rumormongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking me to give in to an off-wiki-coordinated harassment campaign because it's apparently inconvenient for Wikipedia to deal with the ramifications of the committee's actions. Sorry, but no, I will not just shut up and go away, as you and the endless string of trolls demand. I apologize if it's inconvenient for you to be continually exposed to a reminder of how unjust the decision was and how precisely I predicted what would happen in its wake — a continual series of SPAs appearing and reappearing to demand that, in this topic area, reliable sources be ignored, BLP violations be accepted and living people be slandered. That is, as it happens, exactly what is going on now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, if you truly believe that an editor's refusal to give into an anonymous harassment campaign aimed at forcing them out of a topic area is "battleground behavior," then you have laid the foundation for the destruction of the project, because there will come a tipping point at which time there will be more anonymous trolls than there are good-faith editors and admins left to defend the project's basic principles in contentious topic areas. The goal of these trolls is simple: raise the personal cost of defending the project's basic policies beyond that which anyone wants to bear. Already I have been subjected to numerous attacks, death threats and harassment methods on and off the encyclopedia, for doing little more than demanding that our articles adhere to what reliable sources say, and that our articles reject anonymous attempts at assassinating the character of living people. ArbCom has taught the trolls that all they have to do is depict those who stand up against them as engaging in "battleground behavior" and they win. Already we've seen them come after JzG and others. If you don't think they'll keep going after every single person who tries to enforce the policies against them, you're delusional. And at some point, everyone with a shred of sanity will throw up their hands and give up — even the redoubtable HJ Mitchell, to whom I will entrust any future BLP violations I identify. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement from Harry Mitchell
I have little to add here. I closed two AE requests where the result was astoundingly obvious (and have been taking flak for it on my talk page since). Posting links to obviously inappropriate material, especially where the source couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes is, at best, grossly negligent. I note that Retartist says they did it in good faith and I have no reason to doubt their word, but that's not the sort of conduct we need in difficult topic areas.

I don't see anything to clarify. Four admins ( and I) were in agreement that the material in question was a BLP violation. I asked whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of mis(conduct|judgement) and was presented with evidence of the latter. It would have taken something miraculous for that thread or the one against NBSB to have been closed any other way.

That will probably be the extent of my comments here unless somebody asks me a direct question. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of EF's reply and DHeyward's comment, I'll add: I'm not sure this is within the jurisdiction of ArbCom, but if it were my thoughts are that if something couldn't possibly be considered a reliable source, and it contains potentially defamatory claims, it has no business being linked to from Wikipedia. Especially not from an article or its talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
The enforcement request for BANEX is a red herring. The issue is whether links, without any statements about the link content (i.e. "Please look here") are BLP violations in and of themselves on a talk page - WP:BLPTALK. No one is repeating the claims on-wiki. There is a very obtuse view that a link can, by itself, be a BLP violation. That's nonsense. We have much stricter policies regarding links in articles, but links provided for discussion can be ignored, or archived without affecting the encyclopedia. There is more disruption by deleting links on talk pages than by ignoring them. Revdel's are even more asinine. The reality is that a talk page discussion that says "Does this link have anything we can use [wwww.example.com]?" is not the same as saying "This link says Person X did Y, can we use it [wwww.example.com]?". The latter should be redacted if the claims are BLP violations, the former should be ignored or commented on but it need not be removed. We can't even control secondary content in sources in articles, so why stifle discussion (or worse, punish editors for trying to start a discussion? If we source NY Times in an article and they decide to have an inline link that leads to characterizations that WP would not publish (i.e. say a criminal charge), that doesn't forever invalidate the source.  Papers like the guardian have second level links that are "NAtional Inquire"ish type stories on celebrities.

We don't regulate offsite content or links that are twice removed from articles. This is where talk page links are. No one is reading WP and following the link to validate a claim made on WP. If simply following links were bad, without claims, we would need to guard against the side bar content of sites like The Daily Mail that have a number of "Don't miss" articles. The fact is, if he claim isn't made on WP, the link is immaterial and certainly not a BLP violation. This is longstanding policy to allow for collegial discussion of subjects without fear. That should continue. Those that only delete links on talk pages are being disruptive, not collaborative. Ignore it per WP:BEANS. WP is not responsible for what others say offsite nor is a link any kind of affirmation. We've learned this with links to articles about the ArbCom committee itself. The stories were false. Portraying them as true on WP is problematic. Linking to them without judgement is not. Witch-hunting for those that dared add the link is disruptive.

The sole exception is "outing" and the simple rule of thumb is if the Oversight committee is not going to remove it, it's not a policy violation and it should be left alone. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EncyclopediaBob
Just a quick clarification and summary: I have no position on WP: BANEX and whether NBSB's actions complied. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of that policy. My disagreement with EvergreenFir (and others) seems to be in the application of BLP policy, whether on talk pages under WP:BLPTALK or in article space under WP:BLP. As I understand it, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source BLP material. As it's been applied by a number of admins, non-BLP-compliant sources may not be used to source any material, even non-BLP material, and the linking of such sources is sanctionable. I joined the discussion on WP:BLPTALK in an attempt to bridge the significant gulf between my reading of the policy and its current application. —EncyclopediaBob  (talk)  02:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist
All i want to say is that i posted the links in good faith and was stupid in posting so many links without checking each one --Ret&Delta;rtist (разговор ) 02:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
I am working on a statement, which not only addresses all of the principle & policy aspects, but is also below the 500 word limit; in the meantime...

Thanks to:


 * , for raising this in this forum;
 * respected ArbCom members, for their time & consideration of this matter;
 * all other editors responding either here or at WT:BLP;
 * and especially, for his tireless efforts in administration in contentious areas.

Clarification:

The discussion initiated at WT:BLP stemmed from my noticing a number of instances of removal, reversion, and revdeletion of links to sources containing contentious material from article talk pages, citing WP:BLP. It is not based on one set of deletions claiming WP:BLP. See:

I am not concerned by any one instance of this type of removal, reversion or deletion nor by the editors involved. I am concerned by the pattern, and the implications on consensus building if it is to become an accepted practice. I ask those commenting and the Arbitrators to focus on the relevant principles, policies & guidelines. See: WP:5P, WP:CON, WP:BLP (incl. BLPTALK), WP:TPG (incl. WP:TPO) & WP:CRYBLP.

Statement: (placeholder)

The concern is that this type of invocation of WP:BLP is being used to suppress the normal working of the Wikipedia Project; preventing discussion of sources, and improvement of the encyclopedia through consensus. Editors are leveraging WP:BLP to remove good faith links to potential sources (and good faith, sourced, discussion of existing sources). Editors should be able to point (link) to a source, and discuss it's appropriateness without fear of sanction. If a source is not reliable, or not usable for any other reason, that should be decided by consensus, which requires that the source be identifiable (linked) for discussion.

In summary:
 * "the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Wikipedia from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof)" - WP:BLP (as understood by ) See:
 * "links to contentious material do not violate BLP; unsourced contentious material violates BLP"; - WP:BLP (as understood by ),
 * "invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion" - WP:CRYBLP

W.r.t ArbCom action on this request, I would ask no more than the committee affirm that WP:BLPREMOVE, as it applies to non-mainspace pages, covers only contentious material, not links to external websites (where the contents are not repeated on Wikipedia).

Thanks again for your consideration of this matter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
The attention of the Arbitration Committee is drawn to the circumstance that, last night, this page was widely extolled on Twitter by a variety of anonymous accounts bearing GamerGate regalia and celebrating the expected further sanctioning of User:NorthBySouthBaranof which is and has long been their stated goal and plan. There, @theWTFMagazine links to an 8chan thread on that distinguished contributor which begins:


 * His persecution delusions are flaring up
 * His inner white knight is gleaming
 * He changed into new diapers

It apparently began twelve hours ago, attracting some 50 posts overnight.

You will be pleased to know that @PalinFreeborn is cheering you on, @FortunateCat is calling on your vigor, @ED_Updates -- doubtless that same people who were so very eager for you to take action against Ryulong that they needed to tell you all about his religious background (avaricious Jew!) and sex life -- is asking User:Jimbo to stiffen your resolve. All are eager to see that you continue steadily on your course and remain firm in your intention.

Look at the progress you have made! Yesterday, a vigorous and lengthy debate on the Talk page has proceeded through an additional 8,000 words of discussion devoted to whether WP:RS shall be disregarded for GamerGate because the entire press is biased against #GamerGate, 2,500 words revisiting the much-discussed question of whether actions associated with the GamerGate hashtag may be excluded because someone says "they were not really GamerGate supporters" and whether GamerGate is a "movement". One of the GamerGate victims had a 550 word libel revdel'd again; as you know, this is hardly a rare occurrence.

You could (and should) have stopped this; instead, you have encouraged it.

I concur with User:NorthBySouthBaranof: GamerGate has handed every little PR shop a textbook on how to pervert Wikipedia. ArbCom has written the textbook for destroying Wikipedia from within.

This flagrant effort to pervert Wikipedia's disciplinary mechanism is not likely to arouse your notice or evoke your concern. The standard discussed below -- that some BLP-violating links are OK on talk pages, some are not, and that the encyclopedia's defender should be less vehement in upholding its rules -- is risible. After all, the matter is a small content dispute: some editors want to use Wikipedia to spread claims appearing in unreliable sources that specific women in software development are sluts and whores. Others think this is clearly prohibited by policy. ArbCom in its majesty, it seems, believes that Wikipedia will be served well by exhaustively and repeatedly discussing the matter on talk pages, on drama boards, and here.

After all, what's the harm? Just a content dispute!

Wikipedia talk pages are a weapon against GamerGates’s victims. Those who object to this continuing outrage are necessarily and inconveniently guilty of battleground behavior and must be driven from Wikipedia, leaving the way clear for the trolls.

Meanwhile, the world awaits a sign of your care for the editors who served this project, or for its victims. http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html MarkBernstein (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @62.157.60.27 takes me to task for "spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement above" and for various other high crimes. If 62.157.60.27 has some particular correction to offer, 62.157.60.27 might be so good as to identify it.  In the same jeremiad, 62.157.60.27 is apparently outraged that Brianna Wu expressed an opinion in the pages of Bustle with which 62.157.60.27 does not agree and wants ArbCom to do something about it. Like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) this has nothing to do with the case.  The paragraph bearing my name is irrelevant, uncivil, and assumes no good faith; it is also very interesting that its “uninvolved”  author is so well acquainted with the topic and with intricacies of Wikipedia procedure but does not possess (or does not desire to use) a Wikipedia account. I request it be hatted or deleted by the clerk.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Rhoark’s standard of imminent harm creates a new "extra-special BLP" for talk pages. Would (to choose a pertinent example) saying that a software developer has prostituted herself rise to this standard?  Would saying that she had slept with more than five men rise to this level? Would saying that the software developer had faked threats of assault, rape, and death qualify? These are three of the BLP violations in question here; they have been discussed many times and at great length on the talk page, as ArbCom members (all of whom have, I am sure, read the entire talk page archives with care and attention) well know. But of course the separate, vague, higher standard for BLP on talk pages is precisely what is wanted here by those who have so successfully exploited -- and continue to use -- Wikipedia's talk pages to punish their enemies and all who stand in their way --  now including, as mentioned above,   User:NorthBySouthBaranof. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk
Is there a reason we didn't topic ban retartist for three months and block them for 24 hours? Protonk (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still more time than you apparently took before topic banning an admin in good standing for stating the central known fact of the gamergate controversy (a statement which was at the time of the block printed in the signpost, FFS). Sorry if my disgust at your appallingly poor block upsets you. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved IP-editor
If you are not going to clarify the issue in regards to WP:BLPTALK violations, can you at least explain why it is allowed to be one-sidedly used as some sort of hammer to punish ideological opponents?

There seem to be constant revdels and topic-bans for what seems to be some of the most innocuous thing like posting a link to any articles or trying to discuss something on talk pages regarding certain people (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn for instance), but there seems to be a double standard when this applies to other living persons, for instance this personal opinion article from Bustle: accusing someone of criminal behavior of the most vile kind and calling on the Obama administration to arrest and prosecute them has not been interpreted as a BLP violations against living persons.

You also have User:MarkBernstein who has previously been blocked due to statements he made, but was apparently allowed back and is blatantly spreading misinformation about the ArbCom case even in his statement on this very page and has called other editors "rape apologists" on the site he identified as his own and called for sanctions against them before  and yet he is still somehow allowed to offer his input, while others are topic-banned or blocked for much less? Is there some sort of stipulation that some people or groups of people deserve protection against any kind of violations of these policies, while other living persons or groups of people don't enjoy the same privileges and can be called anything one wishes without recourse or penalties?

62.157.60.27 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
I understand why EvergreenFir brought this here, but the arbitrators have said what needs to be said, and nothing else useful is going to come out of this thread, whether it is closed promptly or a week from now. I suggest the former. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark
BLP is for the most part a policy about claims, not about sources. I've brought this up before at the noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive213. I think everyone should be advised to wait for consensus before redacting links - excepting where the content is illegal or in some way liable to cause imminent harm. Rhoark (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not proposed a weakening of BLP for talk pages, rather a common-sense concession towards strengthening it. Otherwise the content of a link has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia outside those portions that are discussed on this site. Rhoark (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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



Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd say changing the wording of BLPTALK is fully ultra vires of the Committee, but I do think the AE admins got this one right, the link served no useful purpose, and BANEX was correctly (and even if you disagree, in good faith) invoked. I'm just not seeing anything for ArbCom to do here. Courcelles 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere; however, it applies to different degrees depending on the location of the offending material. While its application needs to be very strict and proactive in mainspace, which is where most people end up looking and where an allegation may sound like it's made in Wikipedia's voice, its application on talk pages and on WP:BLPN needs to be less strict. The policy indirectly acknowledges this, when it says [w]hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Since to restore what someone else has flagged as a BLP violation you need a consensus, it follow that it is permissible to discuss in good faith possible BLP violations in talk space and on the appropriate noticeboard; after the discussion is over, if it's determined that the material was indeed a violation, then the discussion may be hatted or purged of the offending material, but, again, there needs to be a place where such a discussion can be had without hindrance. Removal of material without discussion from talk pages or from the relevant noticeboard should be reserved for cases of egregious and uncontroversial BLP violations. This appears to have been one such case. That said, NBSB, you were right on the merits, but your approach still leaves much to be desired. Please move on. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, that's exactly the kind of battleground attitude I was referring to by "your approach still leaves much to be desired". Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As Courcelles says, it's not our role to change the wording of BLPTALK, nor do I think we should be mandating a specific interpretation, which would have the same practical effect. AS Salvio says, the application of BLPTALK outside of article space isn't as cut and dried as it is in an article, and I agree with his comments on material on a talk page or BLPN - it needs to be possible to discuss at least most suggested BLP violations, which might mean including a link. Hatting or purging may be required after a discussion is concluded. I don't see a role for us here. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Firstly, BANEX was correctly applied in this case. On the broader point, a blanket statement is not going to help here. It is perfectly legitimate, in almost all cases, to discuss on a talk page whether source X is a BLP violation or not (if consensus is that it is, then some or all of the discussion may need to be hidden or removed). In a minority of cases though, and this is one of them, the BLP violation is so clear and/or so gross that even including it on a talk page is not acceptable. Every case is different though, so it needs to be left to individual judgement as to when this applies. So beyond reminding everybody to err on the side of caution with BLPs there is nothing more for us to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As pretty well always, there's no blanket ruling to make here. Appropriateness of material is on a case by case basis, though I would say that discussions as to whether or not certain material is appropriate at all should generally be given relatively wide latitude to take place, certainly more latitude than use in an article due to the difference in visibility. But "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and if someone is using such a discussion as a coatrack to push BLP violations or the material is egregiously bad, that is not acceptable and someone is right to stop it. In this case, I think NBSB had a good faith belief enforcement was necessary, and that assessment clearly was not way out of line with consensus on the matter. I therefore see no reason to overturn HJ Mitchell's decision that a legitimate exemption to a topic ban applied here. However, NBSB, I'd strongly advise you to take Gamergate related items off your watchlist. You were quite properly warned that while this instance fell under a topic ban exemption, your ongoing discussion of the matter after the topic ban was in place was clearly not allowed by it, and while that's stale for enforcement at this time, I think you could expect enforcement action if that continues. Topic bans apply to user talk pages as surely as any others. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MrX at 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics
 * Sanctions as deemed appropriate by Arbcom based on Arzel's recidivism

Statement by MrX
(Note: The following was moved from Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement on ' suggestion.)

Arzel has a long, well-documented history of abusive and disruptive personal comments. Around seven months ago, Arcom gave a clear warning to Arzel that "continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project." Unfortunately it has had little sustained effect. Arzel spends a great deal of his Wikipedia time reverting other editor's contributions, complaining about liberal bias, and making insulting claims about editors' intentions. He gravitates to controversial political and news agency articles, but does very little to collaborate with other editors to actually try to improve the articles.


 * Evidence
 * 1) February 12, 2015 "So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
 * 2) February 11, 2015 "You confuse WP:NOTNEWS with WP:N and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
 * 3) February 10, 2015 "Added response to the tripe. SPLC loses respect by the day." (edit summary - Politicizing a content dispute)
 * 4) February 10, 2015 "Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration." (Politicizing a content dispute)
 * 5) January 5, 2015 "Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere." (Personalizing a content dispute)
 * 6) February 4, 2015 "Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality."(Personalizing a content dispute, and a clear personal attack)
 * 7) February 4, 2015 "Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals." (Personalizing a content dispute)
 * 8) January 19, 2015 "If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else." (Personalizing a content dispute)
 * 9) January 12, 2015 "You are an admin, you should help reign this crap in, not propagate it." (Personalizing a content dispute)
 * 10) November 2, 2014 "Why do you feel the need to trash a living person?" (Personalizing a content dispute)


 * Admin warning on 4 February 2015

There are other milder examples from the past few months. I don't think there is any point filling the page with addition diffs, but will do so if it helps. Thank you.- MrX 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel
1. The SLPC makes a really questionable attack on Ben Carson, which was quickly added by MrX when it was noticed. When retracted (which received a lot of attention) we are rewarded with laughs.

2. This is news, yet was added and re-added almost as it happened. and then complained that a notable fact was way POVish.

3. Truthful, and they did lose quite a bit of respect with this. It would have been nice if MrX had added Carson's response originally.

4. Section was title "Long been accused of left-wing bias" and I didn't start it, so I don't know how providing some examples politicized an already politicized section.

5. Virinditas put forth his theories about User:Marteau, I told him to stop.

6 and 7. Maybe a little rough, but MrX's previous comment was not much different. Heat of the moment.

8. You really need to read the entire section to see how a couple of editors apparently really were upset with Emerson while a few of us were trying to maintain BLP standards.

9. Related to Emerson, where it appears that the same story was being pushed into multiple articles as it was happening without any evidence of long lasting notability  The article is basically a list of every beef that everyone has with FNC, don't really see how that fits in with WP's purpose.

10. In response to this edit. JamesMLane added it back twice with two other editors removing. Crooks and Liars is not a reliable source for a BLP.

Sections in which I discussed which were called politicizing were politicized before I became involved. My two statements to MrX were probably a little rough for which I apologize, I just wish editors would not use WP to score political points (not specific to MrX), which oftens appears to be the case. Note: I didn't have a chance to go back to MrX's page and didn't see that "warning" until just now.

Just want to point out that the so called warning was not on my talk page and that I didn't know it existed until this complaint.

Statement by Collect
I retain my dislike of "dramaboards." I do not see the evidence educed as proof of much at all. I suggest Arzel be told not to make future attacks on editors and that he be told to remove any which other editors tell him could be so considered. A decent acceptance of conflict is essential to reach compromise, while removing opponents will result in unbalanced articles. I would rather live with opponents keeping an eye on my edits than with no opponents and the "truth" ruling all articles, especially BLPs. emended Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Crooks and Liars" was not and is not a suitable source for any BLP. emended Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a point in my editing never to prejudge anyone on the basis of weak evidence. Collect (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel
For each of these violations there is likely a reasonable excuse or explanation, but together they and many, many others add up to a long-standing pattern of behavior. It is well established, most recently in the Gamergate case, that a pattern of negative and problematic behavior even in the defense of justice or policy is not acceptable. No one is saying adding poor sources or violating BLP is acceptable, but constantly responding to alleged incidents of such in a manner that is pointy, uncivil, and personalizes disputes is counterproductive and inappropriate. Behavior like this is the reason that political articles are a hornet's nest that many users want to avoid. It poisons the atmosphere of collaborative editing and encourages retaliatory behavior from other editors. We're long past the point that, as Collect suggests, this editor be asked nicely to refrain from such behavior. Gamaliel ( talk ) 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
Anything deemed disruptive because of opposing SPLC's listing of Carson as an extremist simply isn't. It's what should be expected of editors that identify a BLP violation. It was pretty well proven that the addition was in fact erroneous and a BLP violation and editors that upheld that high standard on WP should be commended. BLP trumps everything and getting BLP right is the overriding goal. If that means an editor is uncivil or edit warring or violating a ban, BLP trumps that. Ultimately being right is the underpinning of our BLP policy and why it trumps all the other machinations of process. Processes that protect BLP violating material are to be ignored. The "ultimately correct outcome" is the objective that improves the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Harry Mitchell
Given the recent inability of the committee to make decision on this page, I suggest that you state that Arzel has engaged in sanctionable misconduct (if you feel he has; I haven't read the diffs) and then refer the matter back to AE for a determination of what exactly the sanction should be. Or even authorise AE to make a determination on whether there is sanctionable misconduct.

ArbCom is good at forcing warring parties apart in complex cases. ArbCom is much less good at handling what are essentially enforcement requests. AE on the other hand is very good at handling enforcement requests, because that's what it does. That's all it does, all day every day. We're also much better at dealing with off-topic comments and other nonsense, meaning that AE requests don't get bogged down in lengthy discussion between non-parties.

The last thing anyone needs is another thread in which thirty people spend a fortnight going round in circles. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After all these years, I'd have thought you'd have worked out that I'm fond of slightly unorthodox solutions! ;) But anyway, it was just a suggestion for a more efficient way of dealing with this. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

American politics: Clerk notes

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



American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Just acknowledging that I've seen this. I haven't got time at the moment to read the links (and it is likely going to be Monday before I do), and this isn't something that I can opine on just from what is presented on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I note Collect's request for a warning, Arzel has already been warned both by the Committee and, as the evidence submitted here, by an administrator, for aggressive comments. Not a week after the latter warning, Arzel is again calling others "hypocrites". I fail to see how a third warning would be any more effective than those two, and so I would favor a topic ban. I'll propose a motion for such, as the outcome here really is either that we issue a topic ban or don't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the light of the history, a minimum of a topic ban is required, perhaps coupled with a month or so's site ban to reflect.  Roger Davies  talk 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support imposing at least a full topic ban. A site ban of 1 month is meaningless, if we're going to do it, at least six months is the minimum that makes sense, though I don't know if I support that as yet. Courcelles 19:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I would entirely agree with your sentiment, except that there is no enforceable remedy from this case other than the 1RR, of which I see no evidence of violation. Something, whether the topic ban I've proposed below or another idea entirely has to be passed here to give AE something that is actually enforceable; a warning is, IMO, not an enforceable-at-AE sanction, it requires further action of the Committee. Courcelles 05:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems obvious reason for an indefinite topic ban. Whether a site ban might be needed I think requires some further consideration.  DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Arzel topic banned)


Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support
 * As proposer. Given how binary this request is, might be easier to just vote. I've chosen "politics of the United States" instead of "American Politics" -- the latter is ambiguous, whether it refers to one country or two continents is entirely a matter of interpretation. I would not oppose a site-ban of some duration, though I will leave someone else to propose that if desirable. Courcelles 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor tweaks to first sentence. Added second sentence about enforcement to make it clear it doesn't need come back to us.  Roger Davies  talk 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 11:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Eastern Europe (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RGloucester at 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification Coffee
 * diff of notification Russian editor1996

Statement by RGloucester

 * The following request for clarification is submitted on the advice of Callanecc, following a report I submitted to AE.
 * Whilst the editor in question was plenty disruptive, I wonder why administrator Coffee blocked According to his block notice, he issued the block under WP:ARBEE. However, it was not logged at WP:AC/DSL/2015 until I asked him about it. What's more, the editor was never issued an alert per WP:AC/DS. Coffee has not explained why the editor in question was blocked indefinitely, and I can see nothing that warrants such a block. This seems entirely out of process. Coffee responded that the block was per "IAR", but no reason was given for applying IAR, and I'm fairly certain that DS should not be issued in a willy-nilly manner. The editor in question had been present on Wikipedia for quite a while. He made only a few minor changes to Donbass war/Ukrainian crisis articles, and none of them particularly disruptive. I simply do not understand how this user was summarily blocked for no apparent reason. What's more, this was done under WP:ARBEE. The procedure for WP:ARBEE was completely ignored. I request that the Committee determine whether this application of DS was appropriate. If it was not, I request that Coffee be admonished, both for his inappropriate application of DS, and for his flippant behaviour in the face of accountability.  RGloucester  — ☎ 23:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the suggestion by Courcelles is inappropriate, to say the least. This is a matter of principle. The block was inappropriately applied. Coffee must be admonished, and the sanction lifted. There were no grounds for a sanction. Ignoring the ARBEE issue, for a moment, can someone please tell me where they see grounds for an indefinite block in the blocked editor's edit history? RGloucester  — ☎ 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, how is this acceptable? The user has no history of talk page engagement, so it is unlikely they can understand the unblocking process. The user was blocked for no reason. As Mr Davies noticed, no rationale was given other than "arbitration enforcement". If the "DS prohibitions no longer apply", what is the point of this block? Again, there was no rationale other than "arbitration enforcement", and no evidence of any kind of misconduct. How can you let this block stand? This is a travesty. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee
I would restate what I had over at AE, but I find that not necessary as I believe most if not all of the Arbitrators here have looked at that. I will say that I was indeed forgetful regarding the proper DS procedure (it has been a minute since I performed one of those actions), and can assure you all I'll get it right the next time I feel it necessary to issue a block of this nature. The only other thing I'll state (even though I already stated this at AE) is that RGloucester himself stated at my talk page that "[Russian editor1996] was nothing but disruptive". Therefore, if he has any further questions regarding why that editor was blocked, he should consult our policies on DE. Happy Presidents Day to you all and it's good to see the system here still working. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and lastly, all things taken into consideration, I'm fully behind the below motion made by Roger. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
I'll add what a bit of what I said on RGloucester's talk page:

The issue you want addressed is whether the Committee is happy with IAR being used to impose an out of process discretionary sanction. The sanction being out of process for a few reasons: it wasn't logged (which was fixed after you let them know), there was no alert and they weren't aware by other means, and discretionary sanctions can only be used for "blocks of up to one year in duration" not indefinite. The other issue here is that this block could have been placed as a normal admin action rather than as a discretionary sanction (unlike a TBAN for example). This looks to me like an admin coming back from a break and not familiarising themselves with a procedure which gives them wide ranging powers before using it, obviously that's just a guess though.
 * That would be my suggestion entirely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian editor1996
Could someone provide a single diff of why Russian editor1996 (RE96) is "plenty disruptive"? Looking at the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russian_editor1996 their contributions] I'm not seeing anything -- no POV pushing, no incivility, no edit warring, no posting to noticeboards -- just edits. Not perfect edits? Sure, but isn't that what we -- or at least used to -- encourage with WP:BEBOLD?

If we look at RE96's edit from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_Uprising&diff=560730577&oldid=560350364 a year and half ago], we see the addition of a fairly complete infobox, and comparing his additon to the current revision [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_Uprising&diff=643787751&oldid=560730577] seems to indicate no one has had much of a problem with that.

So the evidence suggests that RE96 is neither an "editor" nor anyone with any malice -- simply a "dabbler," if you will. File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community,_8_January_2014.svg shows us that dabblers have actually performed the overwhelming majority of (67%) of edits to the project. So how is blocking them without prior discussion benefiting the project? If we assume RE96 is a reasonably self-confident person without much of an agenda, why would they bother jumping through unblock hoops when they could simply spend their time somewhere else on the Internet? While I appreciate ya'll's willingness to declare the "arbcom" block an ordinary block, why not do the right thing and simply unblock RE96 until someone can explain why they should be blocked? "IAR" (or "because I felt like it") should not be considered as meeting the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT, nor a legit reason to be blocking folks.

Coffee
While we're here anyway: Arbcom 2014 stated "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed."

Coffee's statements to RGloucester [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoffee&diff=646959875&oldid=646958889], including ''why do you seem have a cactus lodged up your ass? ... Jesus christ, give it a rest. '' Or take it to AE if you like unnecessary drama. '' ... Hell, not even the editor in question has complained about being blocked. Yet, you're over here advocating for this guy like it's Christmas morning. Whatever floats your boat (I assume, drama)...'' clearly do not meet that standard. Although quite excessively snarky, I wouldn't say they're "egregious," nor am I aware of chronic history, such that I can argue we're in the admonishment zone, but a emphatic word or two (e.g. "Knock it off") seems appropriate. NE Ent 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse since I have commented and am going to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * While I'm not particularly troubled by the lack of logging (admins occasionally forget to do that, especially when they're not really familiar with DS and the attendant body of bureaucratic rules, and anyone can log the restriction in their stead), no sanction may be validly imposed if the editor has not been warned or isn't otherwise aware of the fact that DS have been authorised for the area of conflict and it's up to the person asking for the imposition of DS or for the admins actually imposing them to prove that the person was indeed warned or was otherwise aware. Failure to do so should lead to the lifting of the sanction and the bollocking of the admin responsible. While there is a place for IAR in dealing with discretionary sanctions(*), to bypass the need for a warning is not it. (*)An example being my comment here, in spite of your lack of standing to file this request, since the sanctioned editor has not appealed his restriction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Salvio. Absent the mandatory pre-block alert, it's an out of process block. I'd like to hear from please on this.   Roger Davies  talk 13:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just went to turn this into an ordinary admin block but there's no specific misconduct to point to, either in the block log or the talk page notice so that's that option unavailable. (Unless someone wants to reblock of their own volition with a brand new rationale.) The best route forward now is to alert the editor to DS and overturn the block altogether. Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 12:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that Coffee won't be around until Tuesday, although his comments on his talk page and at AE are clearly relevant. He's stated that the talk page of one of the relevant articles mentions the sanction. But I agree it's an out of process block, although I see no reason to think it wasn't done in good faith. I don't think it's up to us to lift the block, particularly as the editor hasn't appealed. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, there's no rush. Nothing dreadful is going to happen if we wait for Coffee to reply. As for unblocking, again, the editor hasn't appealed. Providing everyone agrees it's within our remit, I agree we can convert it into an ordinary Admin block and let the community handle anything else. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also can't see where the editor has edited a talk page, and only one of the several articles edited recently, Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, has the sanctions notice, and the article itself has no edit summary. So it's not at all clear how the editor would have known about any sanctions. Dougweller (talk)
 * Fairly clear this is not a valid AE block for a couple reasons. I think we should convert it to a usual admin block, and then toss it back to usual community processes. Courcelles 18:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Eastern Europe)


Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * On passing, this text can be copied to User:Russian editor 1996's talk page, under the block notice as well as to Coffee's talk.  Roger Davies  talk 16:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I don't feel like an admonishment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple mistake. Let's move on. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 03:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 11:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Amendment request: GamerGate (February 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoldenRing at 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WP:ARBGG
 * 2) WP:ARBGG


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * MarkBernstein -
 * Gamaliel -


 * Information about amendment request
 * WP:ARBGG
 * 13) The following parties to this case have been topic banned by the community under the Gamergate general sanctions:


 * WP:ARBGG
 * 12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing, , and , and  from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

Statement by GoldenRing
The effect of this amendment would be to add MarkBernstein to the list of editors whose TBANs imposed under the community general sanctions are converted to arbitration-imposed TBANs under the standard topic ban.

I believe it was an oversight of the committee not to do this in the first place. The reason that it happened is that most editors presenting evidence dropped sections concerning MarkBernstein when he was handed a community-imposed topic ban (eg, ). However, there is ample evidence available of personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground to add a separate finding of fact and support a separate remedy (eg, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) if the committee thinks that a more appropriate approach.

The reason this has come up now is that Gamaliel has seen fit to remove MarkBernstein's topic ban. on the basis of private email discussions with him. This seems problematic for several reasons:
 * At the time the TBAN was lifted, MarkBernstein was blocked for violating it, the blocking admin being of the opinion that you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate.
 * The violation for which he was blocked was clearly continuing his battleground mentality
 * He has continued to make disruptive / battleground edits since the sanction was lifted.
 * Over 70% of his edits since the TBAN was lifted have been GamerGate-related (31 of 42, though there is some doubt about a couple of YGM notifications; given the editors to whom they are directed, it seems likely)

The sequence of events has the appearance and effect (though I don't think the intention) of making an end-run around the arbitration case. By TBANning MarkBernstein before evidence was well-developed, waiting for the case to end and then removing the TBAN, the committee has effectively been prevented from considering evidence related to him. I think the right way to deal with this is for the committee to consider the evidence presented above and to consider making the amendments suggested.

Lastly, my apologies if this matter was considered by the committee when coming to a decision. If this is the case, I will happily withdraw the request. As it stands, I can see no indication on the workshop or PD pages that it was considered, and several indications from other editors that they considered it moot because of the indefinite topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I named you as a party to this request solely as a courtesy, given your involvement, to invite exactly the sort of comment you have made. I had and have no intention that action would be taken against you regarding this and I do not intend it as an accusation of misconduct on your part. We obviously disagree in our assessment of Mark's editing, but if disagreement was misconduct then where would we be? GoldenRing (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that one discussion at Gamaliel's TP, in which I made five edits (not counting the ARCA notification) rises to the level of disruptive chipping away. If the committee disagrees, I will gladly accept a TBAN; I'm not exactly in the habit of bringing these things and don't want to be. I decided to bring this to ARCA rather than AE because I don't think the request fits the pattern of AE, as it requires consideration of what happened around the case itself. GoldenRing (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Good grief! GoldenRing, greatly aggrieved, Grouses at my gallant jests, those galling goads That Gawker, Guardian, and gazettes aplenty All gave to Gamergate, and you. I admit: I hold some strong opinions of Arbcom’s acts Throughout this case. These I have expressed Elsewhere quite clearly, and accurately I think; Audiences, alerted, have predominately agreed.

Generous @Gamaliel patiently posits that People who think me pernicious, perfidious, And pretty much perfectly putrid would be Glad to display my poor noggin on pikes Or by preference at Kotaku In Action. Anxiously, admins already anticipate A trip to AE, where more words may be spent. An admin convinced, we may head then to AN/I, And wend back to Arbcom. Oh wondrous wiki!

O’er what? I have had some strong words For your actions, and indeed some of you have had some for mine. Jimbo writes that I caused all this stuff from the first, And Gamaliel writes I am "widely unpopular" Throughout Wikipedia. I think he means wildly; He might not be wrong.

But this project’s not purely a contest for praise. Policy prefers both firmness and speed For protecting the blameless who’re prostitutes called, Whose sex lives are subject to endless discussion On the project’s talk pages.

This Baranof did. Off-wiki was Baranof smeared and belittled Because these benighted he bravely defied. He better deserved (and deserves) of you all.

Before I conclude, one brief issue I'd raise: “Behavior” is common to children and beasts, Not colleagues, and conflicting views, bringing heat, Can better be handled with courteous care. “Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar, And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced. Adversaries adopt (in America) address That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine. I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.

(Do you believe these japes should be consigned To user space? Once read, I do not mind.)

Statement by Gamaliel
I have already discussed at length with numerous editors my reasoning and my belief that Mark Bernstein has satisfied my concerns regarding the problematic behavior which caused me to impose the topic ban.

I don't believe there is anything problematic with the way I handled the situation. I had extensive email discussions with Mark Bernstein regarding his behavior, how it would change, and what he would do if the sanction was lifted. This is routine. It would have been impossible to have that discussion on-wiki given the heated atmosphere here and the inevitable sniping that would occur. User:HJ Mitchell has topic banned one user from discussion of Mark Bernstein because he was following him around the encyclopedia criticizing him and trying to get him sanctioned, and likely more will follow.

I disagree that this has the effect of "making an end-run around the arbitration case". Off the top of my head, I believe I indefinitely topic banned five users, and I think most of those before the case had started. At least two of those bans became indefinite Arbcom sanctions, so clearly the case provided ample time and opportunity to consider the behavior of any user sanctioned by me. It would be bad form to retroactively sanction a user well after the case was closed. The discretionary sanctions can easily be applied to any ongoing behavior problems from any user editing these articles.

I find the evidence presented here does not warrant a retroactive sanction nor a discretionary one. As initially presented to me on my user talk page, they included the correction of another editor's typo as evidence of problematic behavior and the inaccurate claim that Mark Bernstein's discussion of anti-Semetic comments about him on Twitter was an attack on other Wikipedia editors labeling them anti-Semetic.

Mark Bernstein is widely unpopular on Wikipedia due to his blog posts and the press coverage they have received, and he is even more unpopular on the less savory parts of the internet, who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan. I believe this particular request is sincere and made in good faith, but we can't ignore the context of the request. In this sort of atmosphere, where so many editors are utterly convinced of Mark Bernstein's perfidy and menace, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to view even the most innocuous statements by him in the worst possible light, as is happening in this request. Gamaliel ( talk ) 06:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't interpret your post here as a request for action or an accusation against myself, but I do appreciate your clarification. Gamaliel ( talk ) 06:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
I noticed the lengthy questioning of Gamaliel at his talk (permalink) and added my thoughts, including the suggestion that any evidence to show a topic ban would be warranted should be presented at WP:AE. As GoldenRing has instead chosen to involve Arbcom, my request is that some action be taken—if new evidence supports a topic ban against MarkBernstein, it should be imposed; otherwise, GoldenRing should be topic banned because the persistent chipping-away is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another statement from Harry Mitchell!
Gamaliel was within his rights to lift the topic ban. I wasn't privy to his conversations with Mark, but in my own email conversations I found Mark to be much more reasonable than he had been made out to be. We were able to reach a gentlemen's agreement that Mark would avoid personally directed comments and I commuted his block to time served, as is my prerogative as the blocking admin. Any fresh misconduct should be brought to AE with dated diffs and a concise explanation of the problem they show.

Meanwhile, BLPs in the topic area are still subject to drive-by attacks from autoconfirmed accounts, so litigating over minor squabbles on talk pages seems to miss the point. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam
It seems like an inordinate amount of attention is being paid to MarkBernstein's editing. As Bernstien's editing hasn't been disruptive since the TBAN has been lifted there isn't any need for Committee action. — Strongjam (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid
Good grief. There may be nothing actionable in this ARCA request, but I'd be hard pressed to see anything but bad attitude out of Mr Bernstein's current behaviour on Wikipedia with regard to GG issues, even in this very ARCA request with his mocking poetry. It's probably not necessary to point this out, but this doesn't seem to be the kind of behaviour that should be expected or encouraged of Wikipedia editors. I say trout MarkBernstein, warn GoldenRing, and just forget that this request ever happened. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
In response to Harry Mitchell's statement, I suggest that BLPs in this topic-area be placed on pending changes. This was done for a handful of them when I suggested it on the workshop during the case, but it sounds like it needs to be expanded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I endorse GorillaWarfare's decision to address clarification-and-amendment requests in haiku. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher
As someone who has been very critical of Mark's action in the past, I think he's improved his behavior sufficiently for a topic ban to be unnecessary for the time being. While obviously a strongly opinionated person, he is no longer making unfounded attacks on other editors, and is instead taking the much more applaudable and rap battle-esque approach of rebutting their arguments in verse. I am now firmly of the opinion that all statements to Arbcom by involved parties should be written in verse, for the sake of fostering Wikilove, dispute resolution etc. So if we could have a motion declaring that, that would be great.Bosstopher (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
Just wanted to make the observation that looking at the sanctions log, at 2014 GG block log, not all topic bans issued were indefinite and some were just for a period of a week or a few months. Not all editors who were topic ban were included in the Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate which clearly identified those editors whose topic bans were commuted into the standard topic ban. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
But then, just today, MarkBernstein does something to deserve this final warning. How many final warnings are there? Please at least log all these as previous sanctions so at least new admins know what they are dealing with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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



GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * AS I see it, Gamaliel's topic ban of MarkBernstein was converted into a discretionary sanction. Admins have the right to revoke a DS they have imposed at their own discretion. So, without fresh cause for a topic ban, I see nothing to do here. Courcelles (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty well agreed with Courcelles. One means of appealing a discretionary sanction is to convince the sanctioning administrator that it's no longer necessary. In this case, that was Gamaliel's decision to make, and Gamaliel saw fit to lift the ban. Should Mark engage in new misconduct in the topic area, anyone can request enforcement and any uninvolved admin could reinstate the ban as a DS. If he doesn't engage in future misconduct, well then the ban really isn't necessary any more after all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Courcelles and Seraphimblade. I'll just add that DS may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, either by direct request or via a request for intervention at WP:AE. This page, ie WP:ARCA, is not the proper venue for WP:AE requests.  Roger Davies  talk 11:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A learned New Yorker named Brad, Thought unadorned plain prose too bad for use at ARCA though haiku are starker than sonnets or limericks. It's sad! An inventive young man from Japan wrote haiku-style limericks.   Roger Davies  talk 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain. AGK  [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Courcelles, Seraphimblade and Roger. Procedurally speaking the topic ban was correctly lifted, and as there are explicitly no requests here for us to consider any action against Gamaliel that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If anyone thinks that MarkBernstein should be topic banned for conduct subsequent to the lifting of the topic ban then they should present the evidence for this at WP:AE. As we have not considered any evidence relating to MarkBernstein's behaviour here, this request should not be considered to limit what evidence AE can take into account if presented there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Thryduulf et al. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf puts it very nicely; I've nothing to add to that. Yunshui 雲 水 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (See Courcelles et al. 2015) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For a topic ban,
 * File a request at AE,
 * ArbCom need not act. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Wifione (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Smallbones at 15:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * diff of notification Fluffernutter
 * diff of notification Bilby
 * diff of notification Jayen466
 * diff of notification HJ Mitchell


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione
 * Please delete this princple, or copyedit it to "6) ... The Committee ...has... a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry ..." where the ... indicate words I've removed.

Statement by Smallbones
The principle seems to say that we do not have a policy on undisclosed paid editing or that ArbCom and admins cannot even consider enforcing the current policy WP:Terms of use and guideline WP:COI (1st section which repeats the relevant part of the ToU), or perhaps not even any part of the ToU.

WP:Terms of use is clearly Wikipedia policy, stating so itself (since 2009), and being categorized as such, and in a policy navigation box. Denying that this is policy, would be creating policy by fiat, and be a constitutional crisis for Wikipedia (i.e. ToU don't apply here). The principle was not needed to decide the case, so there is no need to even appear to be denying that WP:Terms of use can be considered by ArbCom.

The thread at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed_decision discusses this at great length. It says everything that needs to be said IMHO. But do note that IMHO 3 arbs expressed some level of agreement or sympathy with my position in that thread. I'll inform all non-arb participants of that thread, listed above, about this request but don't really think they need to expand upon what they've already said.


 * I'm sorry to repeat myself from the talk page thread, but I just don't understand how anybody can say that WP:Terms of use is not currently a Wikipedia policy.
 * the page itself states "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations."
 * it is listed at List of policies
 * and at Policies and guidelines
 * it is categorized at Category:Wikipedia policies‎
 * and at Category:Wikipedia legal policies‎
 * and listed on the template:legal policy list
 * the relevant section here is repeated word-for-word at WP:COI, a guideline, and ArbCom does enforce guidelines when necessary.


 * I also find it disturbing that folks will say that there is no consensus for the policy when the largest RfC in history was conducted less than a year ago with 80% of the respondents supporting the change to the ToU. The fact that it was conducted, as required by the ToU, on meta rather than en Wikipedia, strikes me at best as a technicality.


 * Now I don't understand the distinction being put forward between accepting WP:Terms of use as policy, but saying that ArbCom does not have a mandate to enforce it.
 * As I understand it ArbCom has the power to enforce any persistent violation of policy. This is supported by Policies and guidelines


 * "In cases where it is clear that a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy), especially if they are doing so intentionally and persistently, that user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing by an administrator. In cases where the general dispute resolution procedure has been ineffective, the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive or sensitive situations."


 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

, just a small correction, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies does list the TOU as policy:

"Policies

These are all official policies of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikimedia wikis

These policies, in addition to the terms of use, apply to all Wikimedia wikis." (my italics)

, I just can't imagine somebody seriously writing "the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding."

The "WMF's unilateral tweaking" was the largest RFC in history. 1103 users (79.4%) supported the change to the TOU and only 286 against it. That's 4 supports for every 1 against. Folks who say that there is no community support for the TOU either haven't paid attention or want to exclude a large number of the members of our community. If anyone - arbs or otherwise - want to change the outcome so that the TOU is no longer policy, the TOU describe how they can do that. It certainly hasn't been done yet. There's no requirement that another RFC has to be run so that policy can be enforced. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter
The Wikimedia Terms of Use are English Wikipedia policy. That is made clear in a number of places, including the Terms of Use themselves, the English Wikipedia page that redirects to the Terms of Use, and our own conflict of interest guideline. The Wikimedia Terms of use prohibit undisclosed paid editing, in very exacting terms. The Terms of Use also spell out exactly how a community would go about opting out of that section of the Terms of Use; none of these steps have been followed - or even begun, as far as I know - by the English Wikipedia. That means that, by the terms that we are all agreeing to by using this site, the ToU's paid editing policy is our paid editing policy. Now, perhaps this somehow slipped through without anyone in the community noticing the extremely long and involved discussion that led to the adoption of the current Terms of Use. Perhaps the community would like to opt out of the Terms of Use using the provision the ToU provide. However, the community has not opted out of them, which means that, at least for the moment, they are our policy, unless and until the community locally opts out of them in the manner laid out by the ToU. Now, does all of this mean Arbcom has to be the enforcer of All Policies Ever, Including Paid Editing, All the Time? No. But it does mean that Arbcom passed a remedy which is literally false: "[paid editing] is not prohibited by site policies." Perhaps Arbcom meant "disclosed paid editing is not prohibited", a true statement (which would be odd, in a case centered around accusations of undisclosed paid editing, but hey, it could happen); in that case, the statement needs to be clarified so that it is no longer ambiguous. It doesn't appear, looking at the Arb responses thus far, that that is the case, however. At least some Arbs appear to literally believe the Terms of Use don't apply on the English Wikipedia, which is...rather a problem. If this is what Arbcom meant, then I would hope that they would read the documentation they missed and correct their finding. All that said, however, it looks like this clarification request is pretty likely to go nowhere, whether because the Arbs aren't familiar with local and/or global policy or just because they are reluctant to modify a finding they passed. That could be a problem going forward; it could not be. It depends on whether Arbcom actually believes this policy doesn't exist and intends to base future decisions on that, or whether it just wants us all to go away and stop talking about this finding so it can hear itself think. I'm hoping it's the latter, and I hope that once this furor dies down, Arbcom will quietly avoid handling future paid editing issues as if there were no policy governing them.


 * I can only speak for myself, but it is not at all uncommon for me to come across new editors (especially at AfC) who are very, very clearly paid editors but who are not disclosing it. To make up a situation by way of example, if someone is creating a page called ABC Widgets, and they have the username JohnUniqueName, and clicking the article's external link to ABCWidgets.com shows that "John UniqueName" is their PR manager...it would beggar belief for that to be a coincidence. Now, if ABC Widgets is pure G11 fluff ("ABC widgets is the bestest widget producer in Countryistan, call us at 555-555-5555 for low, low prices!"), their status as paid/unpaid is irrelevant, because either way, they're spamming. But if the article is more borderline ("ABC widgets is a widget producer in Countryistan. It has won the Golden Widget award from Widgets 'R Us three years running and is considered the premiere widget producer in Countryistan"), it becomes very relevant whether this is a good-faith editor who's here to help build the encyclopedia, or someone who's here to promote ABC Widgets. It is not necessary to out JohnUniqueName publicly to deal with this; in most cases a quiet, non-specific word with them ("Hey, so our ToU require people editing for pay to disclose, please give that a read and see if it applies to you") will do, and in cases where it doesn't, a blocking admin need only use "undisclosed paid editing" or the like as a block summary (I would add "and forward the evidence to Arbcom for review", but you guys appear loathe to get anywhere near any of this lest you get stuck with yet another job). tl;dr: It's not at all uncommon to come across cases where this distinguishing between paid/neutral is relevant if you spend any amount of time in new-page-related areas; please don't tie our hands by retaining a finding saying that we aren't allowed to do anything about them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're looking in the wrong place for the ToU -> enwp policy confirmation. If you read past the beginning, down to this section of the ToU, particularly the end of the "Paid contributions without disclosure" subsection, you'll see it quite explicitly: "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." (emphasis mine). The enwp community may opt out of the ToU's paid editing policy, but it has chosen not to (or has been unable to get consensus to do so, perhaps), which means the global version is our version, and you're (we're) accepting those terms by contributing here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby
When the Terms of Use were changed last year to include a requirement for paid editors to disclose their relationship with clients, this became the English Wikipedia's policy. Since being enacted seven months ago, the various projects have had the opportunity to create alternative policies which would override the ToU. Commons has done so, but to date the community here has not agreed to an alternative. Accordingly, it is incorrect to say that the English Wikipedia does not have a policy in regard to paid editing.

The fix is an easy one - strike the principle, (as it had no particular bearing on the findings), or just strike the first sentence, which would leave us with:


 * "The Committee [has] a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

The principle would then be accurate, it would not in any way change the findings, and the principle could then be easily reapplied to future cases. I'm not concerned as to whether or not the committee chooses to enforce the disclosure requirements, but this would bring the principle in line with the current situation on WP. - Bilby (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade, the community was involved in creating the policy, as it has been expressed in the Terms of Use. Along with the policy are explanations of how it should be applied, clarifying the example you give . The en.wp community can, if we choose, create an alternative policy, but until we do we have the one that was created via the broader Wikimedia community process. I agree that there are questions about how to apply it, but those are separate as to whether or not the policy holds.
 * At any rate, I'm surprised that this is an issue - as far as I'm aware, the disclosure requirements did not come into effect until after Wikifone edited the articles, so a change seems unlikely to have a bearing on the decision. It does suggest some confusion on the part of ArbCom about the current situation with paid editing, so I echo Smallbone's concern about the principal being applied again, but hopefully that won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies - I agree that enforcement is a problem, and I'm not asking ArbCom to try and enforce the policy. My concern is only that the current principal is incorrect - whether or not ArbCom chooses to enforce the policy, the statement that there is no policy prohibiting paid editing is in error. If it isn't going to be reused that's probably not a big concern, but the worry is that the principal may be reused in future cases, or people may take it as written. - Bilby (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466
The most elegant solution is to strike the principle, as there is neither a related finding of fact nor a related remedy. This leaves the committee free to formulate something more developed if and when a related case arises. Andreas JN 466 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
The principle is correct as written. Even if ToU enforcement were ArbCom's job (it's not, the WMF employs lawyers for that), there is no clear enforcement mechanism and it's not ArbCom's job to come up with one. The effects of paid editing, on the other hand, (disclosed or otherwise) are very much within ArbCom's remit because there have long been clear policies which enjoy community consensus and specify enforcement mechanisms (for example, we routinely block people for POV pushing or advertising).

There is no need to prove paid editing, and encouraging attempts to do so is to encourage precisely the sort of opposition research that the likes of Phil Sandifer, WillBeback, Racepacket, and others were banned for. There's a reason we ban people for that sort of thing, and we shouldn't be encouraging it—it's entirely possible to push a POV without being paid and to be paid and write neutrally. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bad editing is very easy to prove and is dealt with quickly (that's what I do on Wikipedia when I'm not bogged down in explaining what I do to people who, meaning no disrespect to them, spend very little time on the front line and so don't realise just how academic this issue is); all it takes is diffs and analysis. Bad motives are impossible to prove with on-wiki evidence, and require digging through people's personal and professional lives, which is one of the few things that gets an almost automatic siteban. Yes, it's entirely possible that somebody who is only here to promote a company does it because they're paid to, but while you're all sat round discussing whether or not they're paid and should have disclosed it, I've blocked them for advertising and have moved on to the next one and the one after that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
1) Amend your dicta that was unneeded for the case. 2) The TOU is a basis for all kinds of policy on Wikipedia. 3) It's silly for the committee to claim it cannot enforce things without confession, it does it all the time (eg notthere, sockpuppets, etc., etc, etc.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

HJMitchell's claim of "no clear enforcement mechanism" is plainly untrue, there are only a very few enforcement mechanisms on wikipedia, for all breaches of site norms. There is no need to "prove" any breach (which is what the committee's, "not a court" principal means), there is only the need to have consensus that a duck appears to be a duck. As for whether paid COI runs the unacceptable risk of skewing coverage and making the pedia less reliable, consensus already is that it does (see the guideline), and that consensus is the only one that conforms to the reliable sources on COI and common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

HJMitchell: So? Policy sets out norms. Be neutral, use RS, don't OR are non-self executing norms - but exist for people who don't know what they are doing in writing an encyclopedia. Anti-COI, is just a prophylactic subset, for people unfamiliar with dealing with their own COI. As for evidence that always varies from case to case, suspicious activities and suspicious statements, confession not required. COI rules are not about motive, they are about the appearance of relationship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller: What policy are you being asked to impose? Your just being asked to cut back on things unneeded for your decision.Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

When you pressed save just now and every other time, you agree to the Terms of Service in WP:TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) It's the agreement we both made when we pressed save and it sets out obligations between us, and every other community member. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) :It guides you and me in using this site that is Us - (aka, the community) and it sets out responsibilities that are the way we are to act to the other users and readers - it is meant to be a benefit to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asking or arguing but WP:CONEXCEPT would be another manifestation of the relevant consensus in addition to the fact that we all in the community agree to the terms set out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well. It would be prudent for arbcom not to make statements that are over-broad and unneeded, and so you should go along with the motion, as you suggest, this is a poor place to 'have it out'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policy. "By using this site you agree to the Terms of Use" -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's what we all in the community consent to by using this site. There cannot be a more universal consensus than that. (The page you link to says that the Terms of Use apply to the English Wikipedia site - as does almost every page on English Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No one is asking the comitee to declare anything. The purpose of this is in fact to get you to not to declare the principle under discussion. However, because it just took you that many words to qualify the needless and infilicitous principle, the commitee should either qualify or strike. Strike would be simplest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community already does have and has used the sanctions against a user under the TOU, so your second paragraph is incorrect, and just makes the retroactive argument all the more needless splitting hairs around a useless principle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The committee is not being asked to enforce the TOU policy, here. Prudence dictates that the committee cross that bridge should you come to it, and that will depend on the facts and circumstances existing when and if that should ever occur. There is usually little consensus about hypotheticals precisely because they have no facts - and issues of enforcement are approached constantly and consistently on this site in the course of specific facts, not hypotheticals. (see eg, ) As for "precedent", that is at best a technical truth, here, when the committee's past statements in its decisions are often used and quoted during and in the committee's work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but part of the reason why all this past explaining is problematic is this clause is stated as a general principle, with no application made to facts (findings) or remedies - so it hangs there as a principle without application to the case. As for the FergusM matter, the community mentioned the TOU often as a reason for the enforcement (up to the very end of the ban discussion) and that appears to be consistent in that, that very part of the TOU is in the community's COI guideline (the policy/guideline distinctions seemingly made are also rather odd, considering it does not matter to your decision - guidelines are something you deal in too, when behavioral issues arise). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You mention "child protection". I, and perhaps others here, are mystified as to what that has to do with "paid editing." Can you explain? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Admitting I have never communicated privately with the committee and obviously don't know how the committee privately discusses off-wiki evidence but you would seem to have cases of basically two types, one where the committee decides it can act (combining on wiki and off wiki evidence, or just looking at on-wiki evidence) and the other type, in which case the committee refers it to other organizations or does nothing with it. Even openly labeling an account (which I suppose the committee need not do), as breaching site norms is not problematic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, and get some rest. In all these years, we also have not solved the neutrality problem, or the OR problem, or the CopyVIO problem, or the true RS problem, etc, etc. but they are in their nature just something we work on everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I was going to add this before you responded. so I will add it here, concerning specifically "enforcement", WP:Policies and guidelines says: "editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines". That responsibility still exists when you are on the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid
Reading through everything out of interest, there seems nothing out of place, incorrect, or policy-setting with the clause under consideration. With all due respect to the request initiator, the proposed rephrasing would not magically change the status quo, either, but it would at a minimum result in an error by omission with regard to the committee's responsibilities and powers. I would suggest that the committee decline the request, and if really feels the need for ArbCom to have the power and responsiblity of enforcing ToU, that they use the usual channels for changing enwiki policy. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In light of 's comment, perhaps the principle should be revised as follows? "6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy." This would help clarify that paid editing isn't banned on Wikipedia, but that undisclosed paid editing can lead to ArbCom actions and remedies. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New proposal for the revised principle: "6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for disclosed paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy. The Committee does not have a mandate to investigate undisclosed paid editing itself." would this address your concerns with the existing motion? // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Konveyor Belt (uninvolved)
While the TOU are site wide policy, I believe the "site policies" referred to in the decision were local policies, which, unless something has very drastically changed lately, do not disallow paid editing, undisclosed or otherwise. If that is the case, then the principle is fine as written.

As for the WMF policies taking precedence over local ones, sure they do, but as they are WMF policies, they are not for us to enforce. The WMF must do it themselves as it is their policy. And as they seem unwilling to do so except in egregious cases, the point is moot.  Konveyor   Belt   17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
This request for amendment seems a transparent attempt to make "policy" by fiat. The fact is, the community has reaffirmed again and again that there is no prohibition of paid editing per se, the WMF's unilateral tweaking of so-called "Terms of Use" notwithstanding. A radical change of policy such as the banning of paid editing needs to come through a community RFC — and good luck with that. The statement on paid editing in the Wifione decision was well considered and accurate, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @ - I was thinking, "gee, I never saw the vote to which you refer." That's because it was on Meta, not En-WP. Get back to me when you subtract all the massive number of unsigned and unverifiable IP votes from this greatest of all plebiscites. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James
If arbcom is not taking any stance at this point in time one way or the other they should simply delete the statement in question.

It appears that further discussion is required on this issue by the En community. Is there evidence of a policy against paid undisclosed advocacy editing? Yes sure there is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, however if there is a job posted on Elance to have an article written about X. When the job is closed and article X appears on Wikipedia, it is not unreasonable to deal with the new article as if it were created by a paid editor and the editor who created it as a paid editor (likely a sock puppet if not disclosed). It is also not unreasonable to request Elance take down the account that took the job if it did not disclose. The community attempting to address spamming / promotional editing is not "harassment" or "threats". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
The principle as written in that case ("The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies.") is fine, and the proposed amendment by user:smallbones here is wishful thinking on their behalf. Paid editing is not prohibited, neither by site policy nor by the TOU amendment. The TOU only requires disclosure of paid editing, and that only came into effect after the period of contributions by Wifione that has been determined to be problematic. As far as I know the TOU itself doesnt explain how to handle non-disclosure prior to the TOU amendment, however that was answered on the talk page by the LCA team; see meta:Talk:Terms_of_use.

The TOU allows each community to enforce the TOU (and any other WMF policy), but does not mandate it, and that does not translate into a mandate for the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to enforce it either, as that mandate should come from the local community. I would hope that any non-trivial violation of the TOU is referred to the WMF legal team, as a TOU ban can only be made by the WMF as it is their contract with the user. If a person has violated the TOU, they should be banned Wikimedia wide — it is not a site specific policy.

Statement by User:DGG
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

I'm unfortunately recused from this case for a concern irrelevant to this particular matter, so I'm commenting here. I agree the AC should not make new policy. But it does enforce all aspects of existing policy relating to behavior on the enWP, unless there are specific provision to the contrary. It does not need a statement for each such policy that it falls under the jurisdiction of arbcom. It does automatically. Existing policy is based on the TOU, and the TOU is policy on all matters with relevance to enWP. As it is the basis on which any of us edits in any capacity, it is in fact superior in position to all local policy here, except to the extent where it permits local variation and  to the extent that local policy may be regarded as an interpretation or extension of it. The TOU have a policy that undisclosed paid editing is not permitted. This provision permits variation to a limited extent, but the enWP has not (yet) chosen to vary it, and is therefore bound by the statement in the TOU. I would if I could make a specific motion to the effect that To avoid doubt, it is existing policy based on the TOU that undisclosed paid editing is prohibited in the English Wikipedia. Editing in this prohibited manner is editing behavior, and therefore under ArbCom jurisdiction, and so I would if I could make a motion that To avoid doubt, the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over undisclosed paid editing, subject as in other matters to superseding office action in particular cases. Wheat Arb Com & the community would do in the way of procedures and standards are secondary matter for subsequent discussion, and I do not think their premature discussion helpful--the first step is to determine the actual policy, and the second to decide how to implement it--or even whether implementation is feasible. I agree that resolution of this case does not require these two statements, but it is usual to give potentially relevant statement of policy, to avoid doubt on the matter. As the question seas raised here, the statements should be made. I intend to propose that the committee make such statements by motion independent of this case, but if it fails to do so, I would urge the community to do so. I do not at the moment propose it to the community, because I still hope to propose these motions from the Committee and take a public vote on them to determine and demonstrate the extent of support they have within the committee. it is obvious that we on arb com think differently  on these two issues, and the way to find the current consensus is by such a discussion and vote, and the community has the right to see it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, within the present committee i agree with your prediction that it would be a landslide for the opposition. I am not so sure about what the  vote would be in the community .I take a long view of things, and hope to see what I say now to be standard doctrine in 2 or 3 years. That's the usual timescale by which I accomplish things here. Instigating sudden fundamental action is not my style; inducing gradual appreciation for the need for it very much  is.  DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
I am late to this party; sorry for that.

Quick note about me: I work the COIN board a lot, acting on postings there and I (along with Smallbones, who started this request) was involved in discussions at the COI guideline about how to implement the amended ToU in our COI guideline. You can see the changes by which the ToU were added to the guideline in this set of diffs, which were worked out over about three weeks. The Talk page discussion, as you can imagine, was elaborate. We were not able to agree on whether the ToU is WP policy - there were strong views on both sides. What we did with the COI guideline, was basically bow to the ToU, recognizing it as a higher and binding authority on us. (Note: The ToU amendment allows communities under it to enact different approaches to paid editing, which we have not done and which I believe we as a community are not capable of doing; we are too divided. Without enacting our own approach, the ToU is binding on us.)

What has happened since then, is that in practice (the true source of policy), we bring the obligation to disclose paid editing to the attention of editors with an apparent COI all the time, and violations are acted on.
 * The template we use for warning editors about minding COI explicitly cites the ToU - see Template:Uw-coi.
 * Also, I have witnessed admins indeffing editors for violating the Terms of Use. For instance,  did so, and the block was reviewed by  and upheld.  I know   has been minding paid editing, I don't know whether he has actually blocked someone for violating it.

In my view, in practice the Terms of Use are being implemented as policy.

I request that Arbcom consider amending the statement under clarification to state something like: OR
 * the WP-en community is obligated to follow and enforce the Terms of Use, which obligates paid editors to disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and to follow project policies and guidelines related to paid editing
 * undisclosed paid editing is against Wikipedia policy, via the operations of the WMF Terms of Use and the practice of the WP-en community.

Please do consider alternative motions before closing this. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Wifione: Clerk notes

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



Wifione: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 17 and Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 18 and it's pretty clear that the community can't agree on this. I also thought that someone was going to raise a new RfC. Until the community can agree on a policy, I don't see how or why we should be imposing one, which is what this request would do. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we should impose anything. We should, however, simply strike principle six by motion, and thus make no statement on the matter at all.  As we decided the case, it was wholly irrelevant to anything; so we have no need to try and rewrite or copyedit it, simply striking it solves all the problems. Courcelles 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was looking more at the arguments than the request. Striking it would seem ok. Salvio, are you objecting to that? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what I got: 6) While undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by site policies, there is not a current mandate from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation for the Committee to enforce of this policy. Further, the arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. This should not be interpreted as prohibiting the community from enforcing the site policies around undisclosed paid editing, or from creating a framework to allow the committee to do so. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with undisclosed paid editing POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy. How does that sound? -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, insert that into the Wifione case... and what does it add? We didn't pass any FoF's related to paid editing, nor base any remedies off of such accusations.  This isn't the place to hammer down the Committee's position on various kinds of paid editing and spend two weeks going around in circles.  We sidestep all of this by simply looking at the final decision, finding the part that doesn't belong in the document, and excising it. Courcelles 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It addresses what was presented in evidence. We didn't pass any FoFs or remedies on it because we don't have the enforcement mandate, not because it was useless to the case. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * et al. Are you actually asserting that the TOU aren't policy? If you are, then are you also going to throw the BLP, NFCC, NOR, Global ban, Global CU, Global OS, Privacy, Access to nonpublic data and Arbitration policies out the window as well? They were applied to the English Wikipedia by the WMF/Jimmy without a local community consensus. -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement as written is not incorrect, the only provisions in the TOU or local policies relate to a subset of paid editing (i.e. undisclosed paid editing) not paid editing as a whole. I therefore see neither need nor benefit in amending the remedy as written. It is however true that this principle does not directly impact the outcome of this case - it was included to reference why we were not making any findings regarding the allegations of paid editing that were repeatedly made against Wifione. So, while I would not oppose any motion to strike it from the case, I don't see doing so as an especially productive use of the Committee's time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside whether it actually matters whether someone is being paid (I really believe it doesn't - if the are improving the encyclopaedia we want them; if they are not currently improving the encyclopaedia work with them until they either are or it becomes clear they cannot or will not), we are not tying anybody's hands with this - "paid editing" is not prohibited by any policy, the subset "undisclosed editing" is prohibited but is not mentioned in this principle. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no policy about "paid advocacy", whether disclosed or otherwise, the terms of use talk only about undisclosed "paid editing" Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, everyone needs to be aware that terms of use also prohibit "violating the privacy of others", including "Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of [..] violation of privacy", "Engaging in harassment, threats, [or] stalking...". Any attempt to discover whether someone is or is not an undisclosed paid editor must be careful not to breach these clauses of the terms of use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't add much to what I said at discussion at the case page (and am unsure why this request is here, does it really need said again?) We can't actually tell if someone is editing for pay unless they disclose it voluntarily, and if they disclose it voluntarily, it's not against the TOU. Checkuser doesn't let one peek into a person's bank account. So, at the end of the day, we can handle inappropriate editing (POV pushing, misuse of references, etc.), regardless of motive, but I don't see how we're supposed to figure out why someone was behaving that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support striking this principle. The current wording isn't correct, but the principle itself is also not so necessary to the case so as to make me feel like we need to spend time crafting better wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's an issue with a principle (which I think there is, here—although I and others interpreted this to mean that there is not local policy about paid editing, the ToU is policy, and the principle currently suggests otherwise), we should fix it regardless of timing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the merits and I disagree on procedure. Arbitration cases coming, as they often do, after years of heated disputes and, as they say, drama  need to put an end to the controversy they deal with. If we start tinkering with cases immediately after they close, that goal is negated. The time to raise issues concerning a proposed decision is before it is passed. Not after.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We regularly tinker with cases after they close; that's the whole point of amendment requests. We've never spoken of any time restrictions around when amendment requests can be filed, and I disagree that we need some arbitrary time period before amending a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question to my fellow Arbitrators: Why, when we passed this at 12-0 is it now completely incorrect and irrelevant? Is it because it's now in the spotlight? Why not fix the issue instead of dumping it to bring it up again in the future? (I already understand Courcelles' objection and I've replied to it above) -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn about the spotlight, but we goofed here, plain and simple. It happens, we need to fix it and move on.  We can either fix it by striking the principle (we don't have to mention everything from evidence in a decision), or by making the exact change  proposed above.  But merely adding the word "disclosed" would make even less sense in the context of the case than striking it, as absolutely no one accused Wifione of being a disclosed paid editor.  But at least that would make the principle into a statement that is actually true. Courcelles 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Courcelles, I agree with the majority of what you had to say there. I still wish a chance to modify the wording a bit though, even with Coldacid's proposal. I'm still thinking of exact wording though before I motion it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In a separate point, how did this become site policy? We are looking at a two man change in Nov 2009, since when do two editors determine what is and isn't English Wikipedia policy? If it's the WMF's, then it should say it's WMF policy. If it's a global one, per the global RfC, then it should say global. Pointless argument, read down --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree to them, in an legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation, not the English Wikipedia Community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then I'm afraid. The first line of the overview in the ToU states "These Terms of Use tell you about our public services at the Wikimedia Foundation, our relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us both." It doesn't mention the community. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that my point is actually a pointless argument. My objection to this being site policy is the fact that the community can't come to an agreement about it. I feel (and yes, feel, so in legal/policy terms it has no application) that there should have been a provision indicating that a consensus, instead of a policy would be the determining guide. Because this is policy set down by the WMF, which yes we agree to by obligation of using this site, the English Wikipedia did not make it's own consensus like in the creation of normal ENWP policy. So while it is site policy, I feel there is a community "will", if you may, to not go with it, because the consensus (for or against) does not yet exist. But again, none of it matters in the grand scheme of things, because were looking at this as letter of the law (or policy, if that fancies you). I do understand that this is site policy, whether I regretfully say yes with every edit or happily say yes with every edit. Are we still disagreeing on the facts at this point? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, yes, this is site policy, and I've stricken my above paragraph. My comments above don't really matter in the grand scheme of this ARCA/Motion, so you can just ignore them, or if you really want we can continue on my talk. Was there anything besides whether or not this is site policy we were disagreeing on? I want to make sure i'm not skipping over anything. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Over-broad, ok, I can see where that comment comes from the specific wording of whether it's policy or not. As for unneeded, I disagree, see my comments with Courcelles above. And I'm not saying this is a bad place to have talk about the motion. I said it was a bad place for me to place my objection to the way the ToU was written. I've stricken the relevant part from my oppose below. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if I accept that the TOU is policy, the TOU also explicitly prohibits invasion of privacy. I have yet to see an allegation of paid editing that did not include an invasion of privacy in some form or another. Furthermore, there are no enforcement provisions. The idea that it therefore falls to ArbCom to fashion an enforcement process out of whole cloth is bizarre. But, if there is to be a process, it needs to be constructed with the fully informed consent of the community and must not sneaked in like via the back door. In essence, the community needs to agree to each aspect of the following question: "Do you consent to ArbCom, on the strength of an anonymous email denouncing you, launching a secret and amateur investigation into your private life - to pry into your location, ryour job title and your employer - then to discuss that investigation at length with others on secret mailing lists, and the perhaps site-ban you with no means of appeal?" Finally, I cannot begin to understand why people are so very keen for ArbCom to create a secret Star Chamber process to tackle paid editing, and then act as judge, jury and executioner when perfectly good and highly transparent processes are already available to deal with POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, battlefield conduct and so forth.  Roger Davies  talk 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . The TOU is the legal agreement between the WMF and each individual editor. Think of it as n x individual "contracts". [The http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies WMF policy page] does not list it as a policy.  Roger Davies  talk 09:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . Whatever the truth of that, it's not ArbCom's job to declare policy. In fact, we are specifically prohibited by ArbPol (itself ratified with 87% support) from doing so. But much more to the point, this principle refers to the Wifione case and, also per ArbPol, sets no precedent. In the context of the case, the allegations of paid editing refer to articles which the editor stopped editing in 2013, at least six months before the 16 June 2014 TOU amendment concerning paid editing came into effect. Simply put, the TOU stuff is irrelevant.  Roger Davies  talk 13:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to the case, in that it guided our decision to not direct address the undisclosed paid editing concerns. It's not necessarily necessary. There is still no community policy for enforcement of this aspect of the ToU. A clarification of the above might be prudent, I'm not sure that the principle was as clear as we would have liked. If arbcom decisions set binding precedent, I'd find this necessary to clarify/address. But as they do not, and it does deal with our decision making on the case, I'm not very bothered by it. In terms of the ToU/policy argument, the terms of use are policy. However in terms of any mandate for enforcement, despite a lot of handwaving there isn't any consensus (either formal or de facto) for how/if arbcom should address them. I also lie in the camp that we should not. NativeForeigner Talk 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'll need to deal with it when we get to it, but I do think that this is a statement that was crafted specifically to this case, in the context of this case. If we deal with a undisclosed paid advocacy case (or even a case request on the topic) we could craft a position more specifically oriented. In terms of the FergusM incident, that was the community acting through consensus, there were also issues of COI editing at play, and given all factors, action was taken. Here we were saying "we're not considering paid editing, because that is the thing we are least comfortable dealing with/enforcing, and our conclusion would be the same whether or not there really was paid editing. NativeForeigner Talk 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I plainly oppose that and would be more than happy to go on the record as such, though I see no such need to play politics (based upon statements here, it would likely be a landslide towards the opposition, as you know.) I find it exceedingly unlikely the community will give us jurisdiction over paid editing, when there was clamoring about the off wiki consequences of us being in charge of child protection! If they do, I have major concerns, but I'll address them if it comes to that. I know you have strong feelings on paid editing, my thoughts in terms of why it is problematic are similar, but to as a committee to have explicit jurisdiction over such matters is more than concerning for me. NativeForeigner Talk 09:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things with very real world consequences that can deal with off wiki information and private information. Hence both have substantial ramifications, and are the two actions where arbcom would step off-wiki the most. Potentially we could address it with on-wiki evidence only, but thus far that would seem to be atypical of most paid editing accusations. NativeForeigner Talk 12:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could agree that it wouldn't cause problems. Whether or not we take the corrective action we're analyzing input, which if not sent to the committee, would absolutely be considered doxing, then acting on it. We lose the ability to communicate any subtleties, mitigating factors, circumstances, which we would analyze if we blocked. But if we block, we're taking full responsibility and analyzing private evidence, for which the community will ahve no view, when enforcing the terms of use. And per Roger Davies above, we are not some sort of court of paid editing. Although the committee was never set up to do a substantial amount of what it does today (WP:BASC etc), it was certainly not set up to be a panel of members for enforcement of a legal document, in private, with no due process, while somewhat encouraging the breaking of the firmly established site policy that doxing is forbidden. I'm quite tired, hopefully this was somewhat coherent. If this issue sticks around (I am hopeful we can adequately resolve this specific issue in a reasonable amount of time) I may write at length about my feelings on the matter. I will say, when I joined the committee last year after dealing with the WikiPR/morning277 stuff, I was frustrated with the handling of it. I wanted the committee to take a more defined role in paid editing. But soon after joining arbcom (even in light of the RfC on meta about paid editing), I realized that my hopes that arbcom could simply resolve the paid editing issue were wildly optimistic, and ignored that arbcom is comprised of 15 volunteers, not 15 attorneys with the ability to serve warrants. (No magic 8 ball either) In my eyes, at this time, without a clear foundation policy, the best we can do to balance the privacy of users, established site policy, and the global ToU, is to act in cases of egregious COI issues, such as Wifione, independently of any paid editing (as we did, and the above Principle points towards). This brings up a good question: how did this COI/(possible!?!) paid editing last for so long without being dealt with. That's a question that the community should seek to answer, in addition to the paid editing one. The fact that User:Vejvančický as well as the (indef blocked) user User:Peter Damian were the ones that truly pushed the case through (organizing off-site) does raise solid questions about the quality of our in-house handling of such issues. I will posit that how we deal with article quality/COI concerns is much more important in the short and long term than how we deal with cases of undisclosed paid editing: presumably undisclosed paid editing leads to the first issue, but many other problems do as well. As far as I am concerned until we recieve clarification from the foundation on how the ToU should be enforced, the focus should be on fixing issues of COI and content, (and, if there is momentum to do so) establishing a local consensus on paid editing. (and how it relates to other policies, such as WP:OUTING.) I understand the tendency to throw this at Arbcom and say "Arbcom deals with private things, and policy, they should fix the undisclosed paid editing thing!" But we are (in my opinion) ill-suited to do so, and the community should work to establish local consensus on the issue to either give or explicitly remove the mandate from arbcom (my feelings on what I think it should do are clear). It might also be reasonable for users to ask the foundation for their feelings on enforcement. When I say that we don't have a mandate, it's not for a lack of wanting to solve the issue. It's because I really do believe arbcom is not the right body of people people to solve this issue. As such the community hasn't formed a consensus as to how these issues should be handled (at all, let alone by arbcom), I maintain there is no mandate that we act on paid editing. Sure, send us cases of coi the community cannot solve, but I do not think that paid editing is something for which a user should be explicitly brought before arbcom for and sanctioned for. Damaging content with COI? Yes. But undisclosed paid editing on its own should not be. This isn't a feel-good solution, where the community can wipe its hands and say "we solved the paid editing problem" As I see it, at the present, with ambiguous local policy, and a global policy whose enforcement raises the "inquisition-like" concerns above, the best we can do is mitigate issues of undisclosed paid editing with good quality vetting of articles for COI/POV issues. NativeForeigner Talk 13:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is very much a work in progress, and it needs to be viewed as such. I think this will take some time, effort, and serious community thought, and won't be solved by attributing it to arbcom. Hopefully through this process of (general) improvement, these issues will be ironed out. But sometimes it takes them being highlighted for the community to make any real progress on them. Thanks for the thoughts. I really hope the community can work a reasonable policy out, although this is a difficult issue, and it may take quite some time. If there is any general guidance I would give, it is that the community should work out processes which are implementable, not ones which look good from a PR perspective. NativeForeigner Talk 13:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Paid editing principle in Wifione case stricken)



 * Support:
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Utterly and completely irrelevant to the case as decided. Also, at best, a half-true statement. Courcelles 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am honestly shocked that so many of my colleagues do not think that the TOU are policy. I would like to point them to the list of policies that I outlined (above) that they enforce yet weren't created by EN Wikipedia. While my personal choice would be my proposed wording, I am in the minority and this is the next best thing. (I agree with Roger that sending Arbcom out on a paid editing exposition will end somewhere between The Big Muddy and a Star Chamber. I hope the community does not tempt fate and add this to our long list of responsibilities.) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from on proposed wording but the principle doesn't mention the TOU at all, it only talks about site policies, ie the policies of the English Wikipedia. Our own local policies refer to "site" meaning the English Wikipedia, and the TOU refers to individual wikis as "sites or Projects" so there's no conflict there. If we really wanted to labour the point I suppose we could add the word "local" before "site policies" but given that "site" has exactly the same meaning in the principle, the TOU and in our site policies, I really don't think it's necessary. And, on reflection, do you?  Roger Davies  talk 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems unnecessary to the case as a whole. While I'm firmly in the TOU=policy camp, I think the wording of the principle is actually legit (undisclosed paid editing is forbidden, paid editing is not), but it's clearly confusing and isn't important to the outcome of the case. Yunshui 雲 水 15:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The principle is fine as is. Also, I do not really appreciate the fact that we are trying to amend a case so soon after it was closed; even assuming for the sake of the argument that the principle was incorrect, there was plenty of time to raise the issue before we finalised the close. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not for sweeping it under the rug and waiting for it to come up again. As several people talked about on the talkpage, we need to amend this, not strike it . The only thing I really ever viewed as an issue was the wording that said the ToU was not policy, and i'm still not 100% convinced that is right either . This needs time for discussion here. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After further review, i'm still here in opposition. If we look closely at the ToU, it says it prohibits non-disclosure, not paid editing. Therefore the original statement is correct and need not be amended. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was inactive on the case, so coming to it with fresh eyes, for whatever that's worth: I see absolutely nothing wrong with the principle, and I would dismiss this request. AGK  [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if we accept the rather tenuous "TOU is actually policy" argument, that really gives no idea as to what would be done here. If we're going to prohibit some types of paid editing, we need to hash out what is and is not acceptable in attempting to demonstrate someone is engaging in it, what exactly is prohibited (I presume we wouldn't prohibit a biology professor from updating taxonomies, for example), and how to balance the very real tension between this and the outing concerns that would inevitably pop up. That is, I think, a discussion that needs to happen, but it is something that needs to gain community consensus, not be imposed by us in a haphazard and ad hoc fashion as various things come to us. This is a perfect example of why ArbCom does not and should not make policy. Right now, there is no community mandate regarding paid editing, so the statement is accurate. That doesn't mean the community can't or shouldn't come up with policies around the issue, just that, to date, it hasn't happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After consideration I think the principle should not be struck. If anyone wants to propose a tweak, ok, we could consider it. I'll also state that I am definitely against ArbCom doing it's own sleuthing to uncover undisclosed paid editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are going to tweak it, we should consider User:Coldacid's suggested version. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * I agree with Salvio that the principle is fine as it is, so I'm not going to support this. As removing it from the case doesn't impact the decision, striking it is pointless but ultimately harmless so I'm not going to oppose it either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing statement could be interpreted in a few ways, at least one of which was not our intention. But as it was part of the decision making in the case, and we are free to reword/refactor going forward. (I'm sure in a subsequent case we wouldn't recycle this verbatim, something like Coldacid's would be more likely to be used.) On the whole, have been sitting on the fence and will remain there. NativeForeigner Talk 13:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: GamerGate (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MarkBernstein at 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by MarkBernstein
On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams on The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. Two days later, I was topic-banned by under the standard AE sanctions, over his concerns regarding this discussion   of that article at the Gamergate talk page.

I had requested clarification by email about the intended scope of the standard topic ban. Receiving no pertinent response, I asked on my talk page.


 * @Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia.

This evoked a vituperative response by email, which I believe to have been sent to you as well, and which is now being discussed at AN/I, which I believe is the appropriate forum. I do not wish to enquire further into that here.

I do not believe the topic ban was proper, just, or expedient. I do not wish to enquire further into that in this place and at this time, though of course you may discuss whatever pleases you.

The underlying question remains: an activist had contacted me that very day, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative among her membership and concerned -- not unreasonably -- over the sort of repercussions that were detailed in Think Progress and previously in a number of other newspapers and magazines.

Is it your intent that the standard Gamergate topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender?

Administrator Masem makes an interesting proposal that the committee find that Campus Rape does not fall under the standard sanctions in general, but it does for me. DHeyward and Thargor Orlando apparently share this fascinating view. This is, of course, a bill of attainder, and is incompatible with the notion of the rule of law.

My question addresses your intent in writing the decision you wrote.

It's not clear to me that the assistance of third parties, involved or otherwise, is helpful for you to determine what you meant to say a scant six weeks ago. Nothing else is at issue here -- although now that the question has been raised so forcefully below, by such august Wikipedians, it might be useful to state whether Wikipedia policy applies alike to all, or whether it can be changed so flexibly to afflict our foes and benefit our pals.


 * Followup: If the sentiment of the committee holds that Campus Rape is a gender-related dispute under the Gamergate decisions, should the usual sanctions warning appear on its talk page? Should it be added to other such pages?  If that addition is disputed and proves controversial, should that question be brought to AN/I or RFC or AE or here?


 * Similarly, for biographies of persons involved in gender-related disputes, should should the usual sanctions warning be added to those talk pages? For example, a case at AE today hinges on whether the biography of comedian Lena Dunham falls under Gamergate or not.


 * I understand from the committee's comments that these matters seem self-evident to some of you . From the perspective of a more academic setting, they seem less clear, and in any case clarity is good. I apologize for the trouble, but it may save vexatious misunderstanding. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beauxlieux
I’m the editor who asked for MarkBernstein’s perspective on editing the Campus Rape page after reading about the Wikipedia GamerGate debacle. So let me weigh in but I also ask you to be kind: I am new here. I don’t know all the protocols, lingo, and history, and it is a bit intimidating. I'm not even sure where to put this comment so I apologize if I'm putting it in the wrong place. I had hoped, perhaps naively, to at least begin editing the Campus Rape page in obscurity. I’m a bit horrified that it has now become inextricably linked to GamerGate in Wikipedia. The Campus Rape page and sexual assault coverage in general need a lot of help. Many prominent researchers and organizations do not have pages, and coverage is skewed. I would love for some of the experienced editors in this discussion to help.

I loudly echo In the case of Campus Rape, I think the letter, if not the spirit, of the sanction is unclear: Campus Rape is not a “gender-related dispute or controversy.” It is gender-related. That is clear. But, Campus Rape is not, in and of itself, a dispute or controversy. Rape is rape. Campus Rape is campus rape. There are, however, myriad disputes and controversies within the topic of Campus Rape. So, the ban might have have been better described as covering “any gender-related topic.” Such a ban would concede that gender-related topics will, most likely, end up having disputes and controversies, which given the gender imbalance issues that Wikipedia is confronting, seems, unfortunately, a fair assumption.

There's a lot of time and energy being spent debating the boundaries of the sanction. But, there’s a bigger issue here. Do sanctions work? I don’t think so. In the IdeaLab I suggested an alternative resolution to sanctions: apology. I would welcome your feedback on it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Require_Apologies Beauxlieux (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help. To clarify for and  -- I understand that I can edit. When I said that Campus Rape and GamerGate are now linked in Wikipedia, I just meant that for search, history, etc, this page now exists. I meant nothing more than that. Here's the chronology of events. After reading about GamerGate, I contacted for his perspective. He generously offered to put Campus Rape on his watch list. Then, he got banned and asked for clarification. Why/how are 's comments redacted? I thought they were really useful. Beauxlieux (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to undo the redacting of 's comments, but since they did it themselves, I don't think that would be appropriate. I will respect their wishes. The point that they and I were making (and that they made better than I at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=650931140&oldid=650930666 ) is that if arbcon or whoever's responsible thinks that campus rape should be included in the ban, then the better wording would be "gender-related topic." That wording is clearer and avoids the debate in which we unfortunately now find ourselves. Can the arbitrators, or whoever it is that is responsible, change the wording of the ban? I do think had a legitimate point that the ban is unclear. While there is a way, as some have argued, that campus rape has become, unfortunately, controversial, there is also, and many survivors would fall into this camp, an understanding that campus rape is not at all controversial and that it is delegitimizing to survivors' experience to call campus rape "controversial." Both interpretations have been articulated in this debate already so I'm not going to repeat them. If wikipedia wants to be welcoming to women, then acknowledging the unfortunate reality of many women that rape is rape would be better than debating whether that reality is controversial or not. So, rather than continue the debate, why not sidestep it? The easy solution -- the solution with integrity -- is to change the wording of the ban. I would hope that whoever can make that happen, does. And, thank you in advance for doing it. Beauxlieux (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher
This isn't actually related to what Mark's said, but it's such a minor and uncontroversial issue that I don't want to create a separate RCA for it. Apologies to Mark for partially hijacking his ARCA. ArmyLine's topic ban (despite what's incorrectly been written on the GG General sanctions page, was actually given under Arbcom's BLP discretionary sanctions. This means FoF13 is factually innaccurate, as is remedy 12. Could these be ammended to note that ArmyLine was banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, as opposed to GG general sanctions? Bosstopher (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom
Given the overly broad topic area and the directive that it be "broadly construed", we were obviously going to be back here. This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to minimize disruption in the long term or will provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to disrupt Wikipedia to drive editors away. I hope that any support that comes their way in this dark hour will help them come up with a decision that is actually likely going to do the former while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really ? that seems to lead down the path that assured  wouldnt happen.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But then again, we have already learned how much value we can put into what the ArbCom says on a PD talk page -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So the NFL /]  and  the US Marines     the US Congress   Saudi Arabia and Sweden  are obviously covered as well, since they have well documented controversies involving gender? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For "topic bans" it may or may not be as clear cut as people seem to think, but per "If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else"." so, as soon as anyone mentions "the NFL cover up of wife beating by players" the DS tag goes on the NFL talk page and people get their alerts? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is continuing to arm semi organized trolls to harass anyone working in feminist space. merely open up your throw away sock troll drawer and begin harassing editors until they snap and one gg topic ban later one less person able to work on any vaguely femist issue. Nice job! Gamergate thanks you again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando
Not to speak for Dreadstar or the Arbs, but the topic ban, as written at MarkBernstein's talk page, is in part for "any gender-related dispute or controversy." This is an incredibly controversial topic anyway, and Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes. The goal of the topic ban is to keep him away from inflaming these topics, not to try and drive him to other ones. I hope the arbs and admins here clarify that this article and his involvement would fall under the relevant sanctions, and perhaps extend this topic ban toward MarkBernstein indefinitely as it should have been back at the original ruling, as he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space due to his personal feelings on the relevant topics of Gamergate, feminism, and Wikipedia's governance. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution.

Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else.

Statement by Strongjam
Clarification on the exact scope of the GG topic ban is needed. This isn't the first time this has been brought up, previously in the this came up. Personally I feel the wording is too broad, but I appreciate that might of been intentional. — Strongjam (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
Thargor Orlando's statement appears to be yet another attempt to silence dissent and sweep this issue under the rug. It is hardly "spamming" to suggest that a significant media article be included in the In the Media section. The fact that the article is significantly critical of Wikipedia's processes and response to this issue derives the inevitable inference that Thargor's decision to engage in an edit war to remove it from the In the Media section is intended to cover up inconvenient truths. (I believe the usual term for that is Streisand effect.) While leveling accusations of a "conflict of interest," Thargor interestingly fails to note his own conflict of interest here, in that the article is critical of the position he has relentlessly pushed on-wiki. What he calls "drama" is no more and no less than a thoroughly-justified belief that the encyclopedia's own processes failed those who stood up to defend the project's basic principles from vicious, organized abuse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom: There is a quite simple solution to these issues, and that is to acknowledge that you have made a mistake in imposing broad and indefinite topic bans on users who did nothing more than defend living people from slander. As the peak of Gamergate-related activities recedes further into the past, the reliably-sourced historical narrative about what it was, what drove it and what it intended is only solidifying, and the historical narrative of how Wikipedia responded can still be changed for the better. I challenge you to examine how you might turn about the public perception that your actions constitute a collective capitulation to an anonymous hate campaign. Injustice has been done to myself and others, and silencing those who would speak out against such injustice only compounds the problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky
"Broadly construed" really needs to be explained better for this topic. The categories listed for Gamergate controversy currently : Category:2014 controversies, Category:2014 in video gaming, Category:Conflict of interest, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Criticism of journalism, Category:Cyberbullying, Category:Women and video games, Category:Hashtags, Category:Internet activism, Category:Internet trolling, Category:Internet vigilantism, Category:Journalism ethics, Category:Video game controversies, Category:Video game journalism, Category:Sexual harassment, Category:Misogyny, Category:2015 in video gaming, Category:2015 controversies Does a Gamergate controversy topic ban include articles sharing these categories? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, a GGC topic ban does ban people from most feminist topics? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I'm reading, if a topic becomes controversial, the topic ban will then also apply? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
I would argue that Campus Rape would not fall under the GG general sanctions as IDed by ArbCom, for any other editor. But I will argue that in the specific case of Mark, who in the past has been quick to label editors as "rape apologists" tied to the GG situation (, that this clearly shows a strong COI in the area, and that in this specific case for Mark should be an area to avoid, if even voluntarily. --M ASEM  (t) 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: The problem with " I hereby propose they be amended to support the efforts of editors who defend living people from slander, instead of thwarting and punishing these editors." is that from the GG arbcom case, there's a difference from enforcing BLP which is meant to prevent WP from introducing claims that are harmful to living person, and actively defending living persons to a point of taking a battleground attitude to anyone with a slightly contrary view, which several editors were doing during GG. We are not here to right wrongs, including when living persons are being negatively attacked off-site, as an an amoral work, we can't let that attitude that we have to defend them on WP override expected civility and consensus building. BLP is strong enough as it is (exempt from 3RR, strict admin actions for severe violations, etc.) that "defending" persons under BLP should not be done on WP. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: "if there were an organized group tying certain Bronys to pedophilia, and said brony people had Wikipedia articles that were being attacked with off-site organization, you would feel much differently." absolutely not. In fact, there are articles that negatively call members of the brony fandom as creepy and approaching that, and those are in our article, but that's because they come from reliable sources and thus appropriate opinions to include to achieve neutrality. I know one can delve into far-less reliable sources and find more accusations, but just as we won't include accusations against BLP from weak RS for GG, we won't do that here, either. The point of my statement is that fundamental civility and consensus-building policy cannot be overriden in the name of "protecting" someone or any other agenda, which is why ArbCom set up those topic bans (that worked on people pushing agendas from both sides) and the general sanction. BLP is not a shield or a bulldozer; it's a admin tool to prevent WP from introducing slanderous material where unfounded, and it works just fine as long with the strength and weight it had. --M ASEM (t) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I know exactly what you are pointing at, and you're missing the point about the whole reason there was a GG case. We have tools at hand to deal with outside campaigns that are trying to introduce slanderous content even if that's being coordinated from off-site and thus a constant stream of newcomers saying "we have to include this fact about X". That was being handled just fine at the GG page once community based sanctions were put into place to deal with SPA accounts. However, there were other new editors that had suggestions for the articles that would not have gone against policy, but simply would require consensus building. There were editors like myself that do not align with the GG side but saw possible problems with the article within policy that needed discussion. Those concerns were being ignored, refused proper discussion, and otherwise washed away within the same breath as with BLP concerns by those editors that were sanctioned, treating these discussions as equivalent to defending BLP and defending the specific people that were the target of GG. There is no excuse for that. That is not consensus building or civil. There was page ownership and battleground mentalities that went far beyond the simple requirements of activity removing and avoiding clearly BLP violations, which is what ArbCom identified in their statements. It's fine if you have a strong drive to protect a living person or similar topic from outright libel/slander on WP and you do that without overzealousness, but you can't let that drive override basic operating principles of an open wiki. This is where COI comes into place: "Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." --M ASEM (t) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (unrelated) coldacid
From the case remedies: "(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

Campus rape is a touchy subject in gender issues and civil issues groups, and because of the spectrum of opinions and how vehemently holders of those opinions can be when they are challenged on them, I think it's safe to say that it would fall under the (i)(b) subclause of the Discretionary sanctions remedy. Whether or not the GG discretionary sanctions should include pages on the subject of campus rape is another issue altogether.

Depending on the size and/or membership of the set of editors both active on pages regarding campus rape and those regarding GamerGate, it may or may not be worthwhile for the arbs to consider making an exception to the GG DS. Honestly I'm not interested in making that determination, nor suggestions towards it, but looking into that may be the way this request should go, if the arbs decide to take any action. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that yes, GG topic bans do include feminist topics, and I'd even posit that (i)(b) and (i)(c) exist to prevent the GamerGate battleground from spilling out into those topic areas. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to know why you think that campus rape as a topic wouldn't fall under the sanctions. I agree that this is definitely an area that should avoid, but unless I've been misreading something, somewhere, it seems pretty clear that campus rape would be covered under the areas included in the GG topic bans. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A topic that is prone to raising controversies is by virtue of the frequency of those controversies, controversial itself. As I already mentioned in my reply to, it seems obvious that topics such as campus rape were intentionally scoped into the discretionary sanctions clause for the GG case to avoid the behaviour from the GamerGate controversy article spilling out further into articles covering gender-related issues. I didn't participate in the GG case, but I did observe it; from those observations I drew the conclusion that the DS scope was intended to keep sanctioned editors from disrupting anything gender issues related.

By the way, a look at your recent contributions, and especially this notice raises the question of whether or not you're back to actually contribute to Wikipedia. I hope the former, but that notice certainly implies the latter. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd actually argue that bringing the topic of murder into this is false equivalence. People don't debate whether or not there's a murder phenomenon, even if particular accusations can be considered controversial. On the other hand, there are groups that argue that campus rape is a large, widespread phenomenon and others who argue that isolated incidents of rape are being tacked together as one big issue. The subject itself is controversial because people are debating the actual meaning and/or the existence of campus rape as an issue or phenomenon in the first place.


 * By the way it's not those "first two words" that has me considering you as WP:NOTHERE. It's the rest of your statement that has me raising this flag, since it implies that you may only be here (or logged in) to make points about "sexist extremists". Perhaps if you hadn't phrased your notice in such a way that assumes bad faith, I wouldn't have seen it as an issue of note wrt your participation in this ARCA request and other edits you've made logged in since December. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your language skills aren't up to snuff; perhaps mine aren't, either. That said, regardless of the intent of the notice you put on your user page, it certainly can be misinterpreted in a manner that follows the tack of my responses to you, and let's leave it at that. As for the murder vs campus rape comparison, has already said what I would have reiterated otherwise in his response to you; also please note the comment by . // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

redacted their own comments, as (based on the change) they felt that their opinion was being misinterpreted. Squiggleslash's comments still remain in the history of the page, however, even if not visible in the ongoing ARCA request. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
MArkBernstein's topic ban was for continuing to comment on contributors and not content. This was noted by two admins on his talk page and has been noted elsewhere. Notwithstanding his strawman argument about campus rape, of which I can find no substantial contribution by MarkBernstein, his topic ban has nothing to do with it. This is a canard put forth only to muddy the waters. MarkBernstein doesn't appear to be here to build the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a place that should be clarified as it was noted by Arbitrators that this is a topic ban and not an article ban. However, the wording of the sanction (Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.) is that once gender-related dispute or controversy has been found, the entire page is off-limits.  From the comments from  and others, it doesn't appear it was the committee's intent to make entire pages off-limits if only sections of that page related to the controversy.  It appears that not everyone is interpreting that the same way and is the source of angst for editors that are under topic bans but feel they cannot edit any page where there might be a controversial section.  I don't think there is any doubt the "controversial section" is off-limits. ,  seem to articulate this concern that a large portion of pages about women are now off-limits.   'In the narrow case of a "Campus rape" article, it would likely be totally off limits.  In the context of a section in a BLP where a person was raped on campus, only that section would be off-limits, not the entire page.'  If that's the intent of the committee, it's not clear in the wording of the sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Since Campus rape references both "attitudes towards women" and Christian Hoff Sommers / gender feminism logically it would fall under the topic ban. NE Ent 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Beauxlieux's query
Answered on their talk [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beauxlieux&diff=prev&oldid=651122869] NE Ent 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I am very concerned that we should not waste the talents of someone like MarkBernstein. While he apparently has trouble disengaging from personalities, or at least understanding how others might perceive what he writes, when working in areas about which he feels strongly, he has a wealth of expertise in the statistical field which can be very productive on Wikipedia.

I don't see Campus rape as being the pacific topic which MarkBernstein hopes. There are fraught conversations about double jeopardy, the role of campus police, notable hoaxes, alleged rapists being "punished" by having to write an essay, how ill-suited campus committees are to understand even the mechanics ("I had to draw a diagram"), whether those who sue universities for wrongful punishment are "entitled", and on, and on.

If this is covered by the sanction under which MarkBernstein finds himself, it is not an area where I would imagine there is any guarantee that the conflict would not recur, especially so soon after recent issues, so a special dispensation would probably be unwise.

I would suggest that other areas such a medicine, climatology and pseudo-science might well benefit from MarkBernstein's statistical expertise.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Cailil
I'm glad this kind of request has come to ARCA - there was a case recently at AE where admins expressed uncertainty as to whether the WP:ARBGG ruling applies to issues that, to my mind, fall within the definition of gender related controversies (in that instance it was the Men's rights movement, a controversial gender politics movement). I said it AE then and I'll say it here my reading of the WP:ARBGG ruling is that "...any gender controversy is covered - so controversial backlashes against Feminism, the USA bills/laws VWA & ERA, and other topics like Same sex marriage, as well as any future issues like the Chelsea Manning conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG)." I (and frankly the reliable sources out there) see issues like campus rape (and a whole panoply of other gender issues that are given high profile in the media due to gender politics around them) fall into the category of gender related controversy. Furthermore Thryduulf's contribution to that AE case seems to me to have muddied waters here. Issues like Campus Rape or Men's rights or feminism or Women's studies are always already about gender, and any controversy about them or if they are a controversy, puts them firmly into the range of the ARBGG AC/DS. If I'm wrong about this I'd welcome correction by Arbs because as it stands the ARBGG ruling seems very clear to me--Cailil  talk 09:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just further I understand where TRPOD is coming from and it would be my reading that topics like the NFL etc are not covered in total but just like any topic ban - sub issues relating to gender are. However my point above is that isssues that are ONLY about gender politics will always be covered if controversial, and there's no two ways about that under the current wording--Cailil  <font color="#808080">talk 11:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

- It seems to me that you've been misinformed by Mark. Campus rape or other gender conflicts are not "inextricibly linked to Gamer Gate". What's happen on wikipedia in the past 3 years is that ArbCom have (finaly) started to deal with protracted conflicts on gender related controversies (Chealsea Manning being one, Abortion being another, and GG being the latest). The ruling does not prevent anyone new to wikipedia from editing Campus rape etc. What is under probation is editor behaviour. As long as people play by the rules and don't disrupt articles to make a point - they have nothing to worry about at all. Discretionary Sanctions are like special speed limits in an area that has high traffic, with cops on standby to enforce them - the only people banned from editing them are those topic banned under the gamer gate ruling because they have a s history of escalating disputes in gender related controversies--<font color="#808080">Cailil  <font color="#808080">talk 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Squiggleslash
(Redacted)

Statement by Rhoark
It would be very difficult to make any contribution to an article on campus rape that would not in some way intersect the controversial matters of statistical prevalence, risk factors, perpetrator demographics, definition of consent, false accusation, due process, or proposed remedies. The whole article must be regarded as a gender-related controversy, and as such MarkBernstein should not be permitted to interact with it. Fortunately, Beauxlieux and her organization need not be uniquely dependent on MarkBernstein to accomplish their goals. I'm sure any member of WikiProject_Feminism, myself included, would be pleased to help them improve the encyclopedia. We shouldn't let them be used as a human shield against a justified topic ban, and they should consider themselves fortunate to be spared being weaponized for more pointy behavior. Rhoark (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding MarkBernstein's latest question, I think that since the purpose of the wide net over gender-related disputes is to prevent exporting proxy wars from Gamergate, it would not be necessary to add any notification to pages not obviously connected to Gamergate or notify contributors to those pages of Gamergate sanctions if they have never at any time made edits related to Gamergate. People who have been notified know what's up, and that's all that matters. Rhoark (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
Topic bans are always intended to be broad enough to avoid the possibility of disruptive editing. "Gender-related" and "controversy" are deliberately broad terms, says DGG. But how does such breadth affect an instance where, say, somebody is editing not disruptively, but helpfully, and the broadness of the terms lays them open to being taken to WP:AE for violating that deliberately broad topic ban, and likely enough sanctioned, as in this current AE case? Don't you people care, with your deliberately broad terms? Was that not foreseeable? Compare NorthBySouthBaranof's comment above. I agree with it; indeed, I find it eloquent. I see Thryduulf has responded to it by inviting NBSB to appeal his topic ban at the end of January next year (bah) or to Jimbo (bah) at any time. The gamergate sanctions are a trainwreck. I hereby propose they be amended to support the efforts of editors who defend living people from slander, instead of thwarting and punishing these editors. This is the page not only for clarification, but also amendment, am I right? Please don't tell me to submit a separate amendment case in triplicate, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {DD2K}
"...there's a difference from enforcing BLP which is meant to prevent WP from introducing claims that are harmful to living person, and actively defending living persons...including when living persons are being negatively attacked off-site,... 'defending' persons under BLP should not be done on WP." Absolutely disturbing. I have a strong inclination that if there were an organized group tying certain Bronys to pedophilia, and said brony people had Wikipedia articles that were being attacked with off-site organization, you would feel much differently. The same with some Arbs here, if the people being attacked weren't just some feminist women who act too big for their britches, the case would have looked much different. I don't know if it's the young age of some of the ArbCom members, or if they are just tone deaf. But when you compare the GGTF case and the GG case, it's absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

- Your response shows that my comment either went right over your head, or you are being purposely obtuse. In fact, this whole episode from start till know shows exactly how systemic bias works on Wikipedia. Regular, good editors are biased and cannot see their own biases. The absurdity of it all would be funny were it not for the consequences involved. Dave Dial (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint
Can we now wrap up and close this request, given that nine Arbs, a majority, have pretty much unanimously declared that campus rape is "related to gender and the subject of controversy", thus being within the standard GG topic ban? I'm not very aware of the procedures - what's next and who can close this? starship.paint <font color="#000000">~ ¡<font color="#E62617">Olé !  05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {next person}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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



GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think the topic of campus rape quite clearly falls inside the scope of the DS authorization. I think we should also reject Masem's idea in his statement.  If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else". As to Bosstopher's comment, they are clearly correct, and we should correct this by motion. (rewritten slightly to clarify what I meant, but the substance is the same). Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TheRedPenOfDoom, this isn't some dramatic expansion of DS, Campus rape is, to me, so clearly a gender-related controversy that it surprises me we even have to discuss it. As to what one arb says somewhere, it doesn't mean the other 14 agree or endorse it, that said, this particular issue of campus rape is not that broad, and is inseparable from gender controversies that the broadly construed language isn't even necessary to have it within the scope as written. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is the scope of "gender-related dispute or controversy," not the validity of the specific topic-ban or the issue of Gamergate itself. The scope is straight-forward - any article, or section of an article, which is controversial or in dispute and is fundamentally related to gender issues. By definition, "Campus rape" is a gender-related issue. Regrettably its prevalence, definitions and demographics are issues of societal controversy (I dont think they should be, but they are). Therefore "Campus rape" is covered by the Gamergate DS and people topic-banned under those DS should edit elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum: On this issue I also agree entirely with . -- Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , where an article is only partly related to gender, the topic ban only applies to those specific parts of the article. So if there was a section in the US Congress article that was about (say) sexual harassment by Congressmen, that would be covered by the ban. The next section on (say) the hours of operation of the Congress, would not. But really there is no need for hair-splitting if the ban is observed in good faith. Anyone with a topic ban should simply not make edits about gender-related issues. There are millions of other articles to work on. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your post. You are perfectly welcome to edit the Campus Rape article. The relevance of this conversation to the article in Campus Rape is you probably shouldn't request editors who have been topic-banned from this area, to work with you on it. Not because you are restricted in any way, but because they are. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , agree re time to close. Closing is done by the clerks, one will be along fairly soon. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled about why we even have to discuss this. Is campus rape gender a controversy? Yes, obviously. Is that controversy related to gender? Yes, given many reliable sources about the topic focus on one gender and the rates of perpetrators and victims differ very significantly by gender, there is no way this could not be. As such campus rape is clearly within the scope of all gamergate topic bans (not just Mark's). Rich Farmbrough offers good advice here.  Euryalus' reply is absolutely correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is explicitly not an appeal of Mark's topic ban, let alone yours, merely a request for clarification regarding its scope. If you wish to appeal your topic ban from GamerGate you may do so at the end of January next year or to Jimbo at any time. Your comments as they stand are not helpful for determining whether the topic of campus rape is or is not a gender-related controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * your arguments are based on a false premise, specifically that the topic of campus rape is not controversial. Sure nobody agrees campus rape should happen, but given the controversy about what constitutes rape and how to deal with it there is no part of the topic which is not controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It might seem bureaucratic, but it will be a whole lot easier for everyone to follow if you do wish to file an amendment request that you do it in a new section of this page. You will need to be a whole lot more specific than you have been so far if it is to stand any chance of success though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bishonen, you cannot file an amendment request, because these sanctions can only be appealed after one year and because you are *not* the sanctioned editor. So, basically, your appeal would be a waste of time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . I think you mean "you are not the sanctioned editor." Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, thanks. I've just fixed my mistake. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . The wording is standard with other topic bans, which have always been interpreted as applying to sections of articles where the whole page is not related to the topic, and anyway in the case of e.g. the BLP then the page is not related to (a), (b) or (c). No change is needed and this request can be archived when a clerk gets to it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What Euryalus said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what he said, but also noting that it isn't whether anyone supports campus rape, it's that it is both gender related and controversial - a number of colleges have tried to cover it up in various ways. That's clearly controversial. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And to reinforce what some of my colleagues have said, this is a topic ban, not an article ban, although some articles would fall entirely within the topic. A BLP on someone which had a section relating to a gender-related controversy wouldn't be, as an article, under the topic ban, but anything related to the controversy would be covered. A topic banned editor would have to avoid that but could still edit the rest of the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I essentially agree with the above. Campus rape is a gender related issue in terms of prevalence, and is also a controversial subject, so it is covered by the topic ban. While it is true that reliable sources all agree it shouldn't happen, there is a great deal of social controversy over how to best address it and the like. As to a subject like the NFL, brought up by, if a controversy that the NFL is involved in is gender related, that particular subject would be covered by the topic ban. If a controversy is not gender related (for a recent example, the controversy over its status as a nonprofit would be one such), that is not covered. And certainly, updating win-loss records for a given season would not be prohibited, since that's likely neither controversial nor gender-related. The entire subject certainly is not covered just because some facets could be, as is true of any topic ban. As MarkBernstein has indicated that he does not intend this to be an appeal to the topic ban itself, I intend this as general comment for anyone subject to such a topic ban, not an opinion on the validity of this particular instance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above. Topic bans are always intended to be broad enough to avoid the possibility of disruptive editing. "Gender-related" and "controversy" are deliberately broad terms, and the includes them material in question. If it is disputed in good faith  whether or not some material is controversial, that normally indicates that it is controversial for this purpose.  And topic bans normally refer to topics, not only to entire articles. As with the other comments, this is intended a a general explanation, for the benefit of all editors concerned.  DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Campus rape, as a topic, is both related to gender and the subject of controversy. I have to admit, I struggle to even understand how someone could argue otherwise. Whilst it is not related to Gamergate, it still clearly falls under the topic ban. That said, Mark Bernstein is topic-banned on Wikipedia, meaning that he cannot edit the article or discuss it here. He stated in his orginal message that he was asking "only to advise an organization seeking [his] advice", and he is perfectly free to offer his advice and opinions to other organisations and editors outside Wikipedia. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. The topic plainly falls within scope. AGK  [•] 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)