Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 83

Amendment request: GamerGate (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Rhoark at 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29


 * 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 Additional party clown car:          ]


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29
 * Create an additional remedy, hereafter termed "standard topic ban (II)" constructed as follows: Any editor restricted per this remedy is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about (a) Gamergate, (b) sexism in video games, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Convert all existing restrictions under standard topic ban (I) or functionally identical to standard topic ban (I) to standard topic ban (II). Any uninvolved administrator may henceforth apply either standard topic ban I or II as a discretionary sanction, as seems most appropriate to prevent disruption.

Statement by Rhoark
Apologies if this request is improper in any way, but as an affected party I would like to request amendment to a sanction I believe is ineffective. The question of what constitutes a "gender-related dispute", and the continuing off-site attention to the matter is causing more disruption than I believe would result from a narrower topic ban on the affected individuals. Except for one of them, I doubt those that are not already indef blocked would actually disrupt other gender controversy pages due to sour grapes (especially after 3 months to cool off), so its mostly a WP:BEANS restriction. I've also heard it claimed the resulting off-site campaigning is further discouraging female participation in Wikipedia, which is a hot-button issue. I don't have firsthand knowledge of that. I share 's concerns about setting a precedent of bending to campaigns organized off-wiki, but I think on the whole this will improve the collaborative editing environment. Rhoark (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've responded to Hipocrite's statements about my editing history, which he also made at AE. It would be helpful if everyone would centralize discussion on that to over there. Rhoark (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tossed the ball and will try to avoid too much of trying to steer it by blowing on it, but I'd like to share the analogy I brought up in the other thread: the more you squeeze a handful of sand, the faster it slips through your fingers. There are problems at the root of the misbehavior that are fixable, but not by doubling down on the same strategy. This is not, as some have suggested, evidence of incompetence or malice at arbcom, so trying a different tack need not be considered an admission of such. No one in history has ever dealt with quite the same situation. Rhoark (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope that tangential discussion of my editing history will not distract too much from the request for amendment. If anyone thinks it is a problem, please bring it to my talk page or a separate filing. I'm not upset by it, and make no demands upon Hipocrite in response to it. On the topic of the request, its natural to react to this as one would react to some reprobate trying to slip the terms of their ban and re-engage. I imagine the arbitrators see that a lot. This is something quite different. Comments supportive of this amendment have been from people quite independent of those sanctioned, and crossing the aisle with respect to the controversial area. Rhoark (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is about a different class of editor than you have concerns about. As shown by NBSB's request for clarification and the case, there is uncertainty about how to even apply GG sanctions to an editor that's operating in gender pages and hasn't touched GG. A different framework or clarification is needed regardless. I think this is something that should be raised for comment at WikiProject Feminism (but I don't want to bring it myself and look like canvassing.)
 * When people are obviously of no use to the encyclopedia they get indeffed. This never would have gone to arbcom if the editors involved weren't wanted in the community in any capacity. As such, I don't think the topic ban is really what's standing between them and battlegrounding non-GG gender pages. If I'm wrong it should still work out for the best under PBAGD.
 * As for what said, I took it as a facetious statement. We should let him clarify before drawing inferences. Rhoark (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TKOP

 * Support Amendment - A wise narrowing of the overly broad existing restrictions. Just narrow it to GamerGate, and if trouble brews again, widen a bit further.  That some have been flirting the restrictions, and with the general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is telling.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To the arbitrators: Would one of you briefly explain why the sanctions are broader than GG? Was there something in the case that was the impetus for a gender controversy ban?. MRA perhaps?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 21:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

 * support the most sensible thing that has happened in the gamergate space in months. And I think what had asked for the last time we were here and what  had suggested back at the proposed decision page. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  08:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid
My feeling on this is that it'll do nothing but promote further boundary testing. The rational part of me doesn't quite agree, but I'd certainly argue against converting the existing bans to the type II proposed above if it is added to the remedies. I'd say to 's comment that general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is not a fault with the topic ban's scope, but rather with admins who are putting the optics of the situation ahead of doing the right thing for Wikipedia.

I'm not entirely opposed to adding the additional topic ban scope, I'm just not sure if it'll actually result in the environment that and  hope for. And I fear that reducing existing tbans to the lighter scope will only encourage those currently under the existing scope to cause further problems in the topic space. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 12:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lena Dunham isn't covered under the GG topic ban scope because she's a woman. The article on her is covered because of controversies related to her book, including the rape allegations made by her as well as the part that has been interpreted as admission of rape of her own sister. Please don't go on with that canard that she and all other women with articles are in scope because of their gender. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If is such an obvious sockpuppet then why don't you report them to WP:SPI? That's what it's there for. Otherwise you're simply casting aspersions. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that has made the same accusation also on AE. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 14:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

makes a good point responding to a comment by below, regarding subclause (i)(c) of the discretionary sanctions clause in the case remedies. However, it seems that the prevailing interpretation is that parts of biographical articles that don't deal with GG or gender-related disputes are acceptable areas for edits by people currently under the GG topic ban. Perhaps if there's any clarification or loosening of the topic ban restriction to be done, it should be to codify this interpretation only. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hear hear! // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 11:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it really so hard to believe that someone might, you know, do some research before beginning to contribute to Wikipedia, or that they'd prefer to not have an account? That they might not be a logged out editor, but someone genuinely editing from an IP address? Because I actually know some such editors. Perhaps you need to remember to assume good faith before blocking people without having any evidence other than that they disagree with you. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by squiggleslash
Makes sense to me, especially as admins seem to be stretching what constitutes a controversy or gender related (Lena Dunham is a woman, therefore gender related; some universities have controversies related to their sexual assault policies/some women have falsely accused men of rape on campus therefore Campus Rape is controversial despite nobody mainstream actually being in favor of it)

I would replace the existing topic ban with this, not add it as an option, and see about creating a more broader topic ban with better language. But given that suggestion will be ignored, I agree with adding it as an option as proposed by the initiator of this proposal. --Squiggleslash (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldacid - You're explaining the justification for Lena Dunham being a "controversy" which wasn't in dispute.

@GorillaWarfare - I wouldn't interpret this as narrowing the scope as creating a well defined scope. The current scope is highly open to interpretation, a sizable gulf exists between what editors (and most people outside of Wikipedia) think is meant by "Gender based controversy" and what admins/Arbcom does. What supporters of the status quo are calling "boundary pushing" isn't boundary pushing, it's people who believe they're on the outside of the boundary.

@GorillaWarfare and other admins now forming views similar to those expressed - OK, well just be aware that this amendment is being proposed to deal with a significant issue, and that it seems likely that unless addressed the relevant Wikipedian disciplinary bureaucracy seems likely to continue to be abused, day in, day out, by the usual suspects bringing in attempts to harass editors whose edits they disagree with. This fix would not, by itself, completely solve it, but the issues can't be solved without this type of fix. As far as the topics under discussion go: I would hope admins and Arbcom recognize there's a difference between personally believing that something fits a particular definition, and believing that everyone else must share the same views. Unfortunately it sounds, from comments like "Toeing the line not attempting to steer clear of the topic area" that this isn't the case, that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, and that you're assuming bad faith in anyone who expresses an opinion on the subject you disagree with. (And for reference, I don't think either topic can be described as either - one isn't controversial, the other isn't gender related) I hope this is not the case and I'm simply misunderstanding this.

@Seraphimblade - It doesn't sound like the specific abuses you're concerned about, people finding excuses to talk about Gamergate, would be affected by placing them under this topic ban. I'm also a little concerned that much of the opposition to this proposal focuses on whether the right message is being sent by "narrowing" the ban, rather than trying to ensure the right thing is done. Is it a problem if an established, reputable, editor who was sanctioned and topic banned for being slightly uncivil and reverting a few consensus-opposed edits on the Gamergate page, corrects problems on the Lena Dunham page? Is this really what you're trying to prevent?

It seems that the current consensus is "We think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy and it's impossible for anyone to disagree with us and not know we think that", and "We can't allow there to be a clearer, tighter, standard topic ban because in some unspecified way that would be rewarding people who are confused by the current ban." I respectfully ask those of you stating those positions to review whether or not they make sense. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc here. Hoping the next group of people who make up Arbcom have a better handle on how to prevent drama, and the sanity of punishing its victims. Unwatching. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beauxlieux
First, the restriction should be for the GamerGate Controversy, not GamerGate, that's the ant, which as far as I know isn't an issue.

Second, the way Wikipedia archives arbitration, the history is not included so 's valuable comments which they chose to redact aren't included after the IMHO inappropriate comments, but the comments are in the history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=651502323 (and yes, I'm a new editor, and if I spend all my time trying to figure out how to make all these fancy links, I won't write this) The inappropriate questioning of Squiggleslash's integrity, however, remains in the arbitration archives, and I'm glad about that.

So, in terms of your concern, "I've also heard it claimed the resulting off-site campaigning is further discouraging female participation in Wikipedia, which is a hot-button issue." The behavior here is what is discouraging female participation. Exposing that behavior isn't the problem. Women appreciate knowing what they may be getting themselves into and making informed decisions based on the reality of what is actually happening in the forum. Calling rape "a gender-related controversy" is disheartening to many women. It is not validating survivors. Rape is rape.

Furthermore, I think these bans and sanctions should be accompanied by a requirement of an apology as I outline here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Require_Apologies That would help create a more civil environment which would be welcoming to women. Beauxlieux (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite
Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet participating in administrative spaces unblocked? Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor who joins in late 2014 doesn't know about WP:REICHSTAG. SPI takes too much time for me to deal with right now. If that's a problem for you, feel free to remove this. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
(ec) I assume that Hipocrite noted that Rhoark is a sockpuppet, based on the very conspicuous behavioral clues. Demanding a full noticeboard discussion and bureaucratic performance before being allowed to acknowledge the obvious is unproductive and unhelpful. I'm not involved in this area at all and I'm only commenting because I saw your response go by on my watchlist, but even I can see that Rhoark was not a new user when he created his account.


 * His first edit (Undid revision 635259463 by Susanpoops (talk)) was an undo.
 * His fourth edit (less than two hours later) (Added citations, excised original research, improved encyclopedic tone) was a massive revision demonstrating a firm grasp of Wikipedia formatting (including references) and jargon.
 * His fifth edit was to bluelink his user page.
 * Essentially every single edit by Rhoark has been to GamerGate- or gender-related topics.

When an obviously-experienced editor creates a new account solely to work in a controversial area, it legitimately raises eyebrows. Even if no one can be bothered to formally analyze and report the duck, it's silly and disingenuous to pretend that we can't hear it quacking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hell, I've been around since 2004 and I still don't fully grasp what happens inside tags. The fact that he was using that markup at all (rather than just, e.g., bare inline links) is indicative of significant experience.
 * I will also note that I made no suggestion as to the identity of the original account, and don't know if they're from 2006 or 2012.  I don't know who it would be, and I wouldn't expect to know; as I said, I'm not at all involved in this area (either as an editor or administratively).  Since SPI won't do "fishing expeditions", we're left with the situation we have here&mdash;an obvious alternate account (albeit one without an obvious master), created exclusively to edit in a contentious area, is now participating in (and initiating) administrative processes.  If the ArbCom wants to encourage and defend such shenanigans, that's on them.  But it's definitely not misconduct or inappropriate for Hipocrite to take note of the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
Placeholder, lack the time to make a full comment atm.

Note that I revised the "party clown car" header above; there's a level of decorum I expect from editors with whom I have no prior relationship. This did not meet it.


 * Thryduulf, et al, this isn't so much about boundary testing as it is about people wanting to know where the flippin' the boundary is. The only way to ensure complete safety for oneself is to pull a TDA and stop editing altogether.  So you either issued a) de facto sitebans or b) set us up to fail with an impossibly broad and vague topic ban.  No one in their right mind would think "campus rape" is a "gender dispute".  Gender touches every aspect of daily life, it is everywhere and anywhere; you simply cannot use that broad of a brush.  Can we edit Susan B Anthony?  The Birdcage?  Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad?  Bra burning?  How about sub-sections,  Dolce_& Gabbana? Tarc (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbcom; they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Un-watching and climbing back into the clown car. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher
Please accept this ammendment Arbcom. The purpose of a topic ban is to prevent disruption. The current scope of the standard Gamergate topic ban only serves to cause disruption. Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) So we're meant to believe that Rhoark, a supposed sock puppet of someone who's been around since 2006, at no point in his decade of wikipedia editing, learnt that you're not meant to use bare-refs as citations? Knowing that policies like OR exist before editing, is a sign of responsible editing that should be encouraged.Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sappow
It seems like what's really needed is clarification and enforcement; it does not necessarily have to be done by narrowing the scope, but it really does seem like a good idea to do it by some means, perhaps even just making a mission statement for what your desired outcome is. This process of enforcement-by-swarm-of-bees is really not a positive one for any outcome that involves the controversy cooling off and not giving everyone constant headaches, and the ambiguity of how the ruling can be interpreted does not help.

I don't know what your preferred outcome would be, but maybe you should just make a statement along the lines of "just stop participating in controversial zones at all, look at all these articles about census data in Kazakhstan that need the attention of an experienced editor, why don't you go help touch up those some? Chill.", if that is the intended goal of the sanctions.

It may also make sense to have some sort of contagion rule applied to the sanctions, because the way people keep pursuing sanctioned individuals like Mark Bernstein around to look for minor violations to open (yet another...) complaint and filing seems like a form of behavior that should be flat out punished itself, if the goal is to have the controversy cool down so good articles can be written. Essentially, if people persist in following around the sanctioned individuals and being hypervigiliant to bring the controversy to their actions anywhere for the slightest mis-step, they should catch some full bore sanctions themselves. Sappow (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Metamagician3000
The topic ban is intended to be broadly construed. The editors concerned need to accept that - as do any other editors who might be tempted to assist them - instead of trying to test the boundaries. Admins also need to understand the broad nature of the topic ban and enforce it. Editors against whom adverse findings were made, with sanctions such as topic bans, should not be given areas in which they are free to keep warring: they should understand that battleground tactics and non-neutral approaches to editing are unwelcome, and they should err on the side of keeping away from any articles that push their emotional/political buttons. The outcome of the case was clear, so I suggest that the request be rejected. If it's accepted, it should only be for the purpose of underlining the broad nature of the ban. Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
When dozens of new or long-dormant accounts crawl out of the woodwork, all to take one side in a controversial issue, including starting and participating in Arb-related issues, having an Arb insist that we assume each new one is legit unless all the forms are filed is disappointing. The solution is not to insist on SPI's, the solution is to block them or topic ban them as soon as they show their colors. I have blocked or topic banned a couple such accounts, and I'm not even active in the area. I suggest ArbCom pass a motion that no new arbitration requests or clarifications or modifications or enforcement requests or anything are allowed from single-purpose accounts who don't significantly edit anything other than GamerGate articles.

A single-purpose account dedicated to editing about snails, or 16th century Japanese poetry, is helpful. Several dozen single-purpose accounts dedicated to pushing one side in a controversial area, not so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen
This is in re Thryduulf's rebuke to Hipocrite below, where he orders Hipocrite to either withdraw the accusation of sockpuppetry or produce SPI-worthy evidence. (Floquenbeam's comment above obviously refers to that as well, though Floq seems to have become outrageously polite in his old age.) In a recent request for enforcement of the GamerGate sanctions, MastCell indeffed the OP as an obvious sock. And I blocked an IP on the same ground, see User talk:76.64.12.157. Neither MastCell nor I could suggest obvious, or any, sockmasters; we blocked because these were obviously people hiding behind respectively an account and an IP to evade scrutiny and stir shit in the GamerGate area without getting their experienced-editor persona in trouble. That is a block reason IMO. But if anybody would like to propose a motion to desysop MastCell and me, I'm fine with that too. Thryduulf, I hope you'll find the time to reply to my comment, and Floquenbeams, as you still haven't to Ten's (an extremely respected admin). That is not meant as a crack; I realize wikitime is precious for arbs. Still, I'm not sure my priorities would be the same as yours in this instance. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Indeed I didn't ask you a question; I criticized your magisterial reproof to Hipocrite and thought you might have something to say to that. I thought the question was implied, but if you're going to blow me off with a formality, I'll put my concern in the form of a question, or several questions. Do you think MastCell and I misused our tools in the actions I described immediately above? Are you going to propose we be desysopped, or admonished, or advised? If not, why not? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC).


 * And I don't believe you noticed my statement that "MastCell indeffed the OP as an obvious sock. And I blocked an IP on the same ground" (my italics). Nor clicked on my links, inserted in order to further clarify that we blocked them as socks. But I'm done here. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Kaciemonster
Considering that the problem here is endless wikilawyering from editors trying to get their opponents blocked or topic banned, the impossibly broad sanction wording opens up more opportunities to continue those same disputes elsewhere on wiki, especially AE. It should be obvious that the current sanctions aren't working the way they were meant to, since the current wording is meant to prevent the problems on the Gamergate article from traveling to other gender-related articles. We're dealing with complaints on these boards that people are editing articles that technically fall under the scope of the sanctions, so they're obviously not living up to their purpose and just causing more drama.

Narrowing the sanctions would allow for editors to edit topics that have nothing to do with Gamergate without the fear of breaking their topic ban on a technicality. I don't think the issue is editors testing the boundaries of the topic ban, I think the issue is that the topic ban isn't intuitive. I'm pretty sure that technically the Girl Scouts of the USA article would count under the current topic ban, because of the whole "girls can't be scouts" thing. Also, any time a woman does anything and gets pushback just because she's a woman, it would count under the topic ban. Should we start issuing sanction notices for articles like that? Or do these sanctions only count if the editor has edited Gamergate and a sort of almost gender-related article? Confusion about the scope of the topic ban has been expressed since the proposed decision was posted. Since there's still confusion, consider that the problem isn't the editors, it's that the current topic ban isn't clear enough.

If the scope is narrowed, Gamergate editors begin editing gender-related topics, and problems start popping up on those articles, it'll become obvious who the editors are that are causing trouble, and they can be dealt with. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
While I think I understand what the committee intended by the phrasing "gender-related dispute" or "gender-related controversy", in practice, it is overly broad and, for instance, could cover the biographies of any man or woman who is deemed controversial. For example, rape is a criminal act, it is not a "controversy" and an article on campus rape shouldn't be covered by an editing restriction that is focused on the GamerGate controversy and its associated subjects. It might be in some people's minds, gender is associated with feminism but gender is a social and cultural construct that is an aspect of any and every individual person, man, woman or child. If the AC meant "feminism" and/or "sexism" than restrict the topic ban to these specific subjects, not any article that touches on aspects of gender. Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, I think I'm pretty familiar with Lena Dunham's bio and it's still not clear to me what part is gender-related controversy and, as such, be subject to GamerGate DS. Are you referring to aspects of her bio that deal with sexuality? Because that is not gender. Gender is ones identity as a man, woman, transgender person or queer and the social, cultural and biological forces that help shape that identity. Gender is not synonymous with sexuality or feminism or women in general. Campus rape is not a gender-related controversy, it's not about identity, it's about sexual violence against men and women. Chelsea Manning case would be covered in this instance because the dispute was about gender identity.
 * I think most of the editors here that I agree with think that "gender-related dispute", broadly constructed, is imprecise and ill-defined and there isn't agreement on the scope of what articles this would apply to. This vagueness can only lead to MORE cases coming to AE, not fewer. This request for clarification is an opportunity for arbitrators to narrow the scope to exactly what troublesome topical areas you had in mind. This action would settle a lot of questions, in advance and reduce the frequency that you will see GamerGate cases returning to AE and ARCA for additional decision-making and fewer sanctions against editors because the boundaries would be clear, not fuzzy. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of arbitrators are refusing to reconsider the scope of the DS so I imagine you will continue to receive GamerGate-related questions on a regular basis. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EChastain
Absolutely agree with the statement by Liz. , doesn't "gender" related equally to men and women (males and females)? Potentially almost any article could fall within "broadly construed", or even WikiProjects as has happened in a "broadly construed" interpretation in another ARCA case. ,, the problem with "the current scope needs to be enforced, and boundary testing dealt with", as you say below, is that many editors don't understand what "the current scope" is. If people like me knew the "current scope", then we could take a stab at the "broadly construed" part. EChastain (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket
I agree with others, GorillaWarfare has a conflict of interest that she denies is a problem but it clearly is an issue in her judgement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:GorillaWarfare, one such is Echaistain above. I don't recall saying you need to recuse but it does colour your judgement. I think that you are on the uber sensitive side. You've made unfounded personal accusations, you've attempted to duck process in banning TKOP, you even jumped all over your fellow Arb in the latest quasi-related bro-hahaha and practically accused that individual of sexism as well merely for pointing out some of the problematic behaviors they had seen. (I attempted to word that carefully so as not to breach my Iban but if that reference is a problem let me know and I will strike it). Asking you what sexism is or isn't or possibly gender related is like taking a match in a powder store house, it causes more issues then it's worth. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:GorillaWarfare I'm sure almost everyone with an entrenched COI would say the exact same thing. They don't see the problem it's a reason why it's so nec a person to exercise caution in those areas. You have failed to do that in a few of the things I've mentioned but you seemingly glossed over in your reply. I don't think you are doing things to just do things, I believe you truly see things in those lights but I think your view on what is and isn't is a bit skewed. I don't support suppression of participation in discussion I think it's a cowards way of answering and or suppressing open dialogue which is vital to Wikipedia's goal but I would urge caution in acting as an arb because you have half fired a few half cocked shots from the hip then pleaded ignorance about the processes. I find those odd that an Arb of your tenure would not know this much about the arb processes which if we assume good faith is that is all it was, but if we look at a darker view you did those things, ie TKOP banning proposal among other things because you allowed your conflict of interest rule your actions and then that was your card to play for lessened responsibility. Those actions don't scream out a whole bunch of reason to have confidence in your reasoning at least in these situations. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil

 * "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and however well intentioned the lobbying to reduce the scope of the ARBGG bans it's missing the point. The GG fiasco was due to the complete lack of tools for the community to deal with organized and semi-organized politically motivated trolling. Whether you like it or not the internet is crawling with highly motivated ideologues who froth at the mouth when it comes to gender issues. And Wikipedia's tolerance for bad behaviour in the area of gender is very high - for example Dave Dial made a comment only in the last ARCA request (a few days ago) saying "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", and nobody batted and eyelid. The problem is an off-wiki issue of hatred and it is not specific to GamerGate. Limiting any solution to the narrow area of GG flies in the face of evidence of the long standing problem of battleground attitudes & meatpuppetry and off-site organized trolling at other Gender related pages, i.e Feminism, Men's rights, Domestic violence, as well as the demonstrated willingness of these trolls (of various political hues) to use wikipedia as a battleground for their offsite agendas. The ruling needs scope to be effective, just like any other ruling in an RfAr related to politics or ideology--Cailil  talk 11:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (anonymous)
Contrary to User:Bishonen's claims above, I have never had an account. And contrary to User:Hipocrite's reasoning, I, too, am well aware of WP:SPIDERMAN (since the canonical name seems to bother some people) and have been for quite some time. Wikipedia is kind of a big deal for many habitual internet users; Google often privileges information from Wikipedia by setting up a sidebar for it, and customized Wikipedia search comes built into modern web browsers. It is not unfathomable that a new editor, or a WP:HUMAN like myself, would have been browsing Wikipedia for years before making any edits, and come across various bits of policy material. Some people like to immerse themselves in the documentation of an Internet culture before attempting to become part of it, you know. After all, there's a pretty universal trend in such cultures of denigrating people for failing to do so - it's absurd that Wikipedia seems bent on persecuting those who actually get the hint because they "know too much".

Wikipedia is IMX a lot more "accessible" than the sock-puppet witch-hunters seem to think - at least for the technologically savvy, and those who have experience with other wiki systems and fora with their own various and sundry markup languages. I've learned how people do things like and  and , and even  simply by looking at existing page source and using Google.

And as for WP:SPIDERMAN itself, a bit of research shows me that it was explicitly mentioned in Dariusz Jemelniak's [https://books.google.ca/books?id=hBpuAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=WP:REICHSTAG&source=bl&ots=IzTck3fzni&sig=t2cVQg6fA6Q1R2gfMTaWh6uYoX8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AQcLVa6vEa3nsATE_4H4Cw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=WP%3AREICHSTAG&f=false Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia]. It's also not unfathomable that new editors would have read such a book and that it might even have been their inspiration for beginning to edit.

70.24.6.180 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note. This IP acknowledges above that they're the same person as, which is currently blocked for disruption. (They also made that pretty clear in these posts at the Teahouse page.) I have therefore struck out the post and blocked the static IP they're using at the moment. No doubt we'll hear from them again, from some other proxy. I advise WP:RBI, but since I'm attacked by name above, I won't myself delete the post. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by DHeyward
As I said on the other request, I think it needs to be clarified that articles like Lena Dunham are not completely off-limits and should clarify using real language ((not "standard language") that it's a "topic ban" not an "article ban". I do however believe that rape of any form is gender related.  Rape is overwhelmingly a violent act committed by men against women.  The view of rape as a crime against women (and not their husbands or fathers) has certainly evolved along with the struggle for gender equality.  "Date rape" became a topic beginning at least in the 1980's as violent crime against women with "No means no" campaigns and the increase in awareness and prosecutions.  "Campus rape" is certainly gender related and we now have "Yes means yes" campaigns.  To the extent that Lena Dunham's biography article covers the details of her experience as a rape victim is, at its core, a deeply personal and overwhelmingly female experience. The purpose of the topic bans is to keep editors from disrupting that section because of a previous pattern of being unable to do so. The battle that occurred/occurs at GamerGate does not need to spill over to every article with gender or sexual overtones due to the personalities or strongly held views that inhibit collaboration or consensus. It is certainly the case in the Lena Dunham article that it's not her article, per se, that was at issue or her gender or sexuality. Rather the personalities that got involved in writing about those issues "brought their bags with them", so to speak. Bishonen blocked a few. BLP issues were fixed but now we have another WP:BATTLEGROUND because of GamerGate baggage. GamerGate topic bans should include both gender and sexuality as both are/were GamerGate battleground topics from the beginning. Topic banned editors will bring their doppelganger when they edit topics that touch on their ban. Ultimately enforcement should be judged by disruption and an overly broad sanction that makes entire persons off-limits creates disruption with frivolous complaints. The topic ban language should reflect that it's only the topic as it relates to the person that's an issue, and not the person as they relate to the topic. "Toeing the line" should be met with warnings and sanctions as it shouldn't be tolerated as the purpose of clarifying the language is to let TBanned editors edit areas unrelated to gender or sexuality, not inch closer to the abyss. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 March 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

 * I've read the statements so far and I'm so far undecided on the request's merits, so I'd like see more opinions. Particularly I really don't want to be sending a message that encourages boundary testing, so any thoughts on that would be particularly welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Having given this more thought and read the additional comments, I'm going to agree with my colleagues and decline to narrow the scope. The correct way to deal with the disruption evident here is for the topic banned editors to steer well clear of the topic area (and read the definitions given by arbitrators, such as Salvio below, not what someone happens to have written on a blog somewhere) and spend time improving the many areas of Wikipedia and/or sister projects that need work. If you don't do this then you will find yourself unable to edit anywhere on Wikipedia and you will have only yourself to blame. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that a user is a sockpuppet editing in violation of the relevant policy, then present that evidence at the appropriate venue (e.g. WP:SPI or WP:AN/I). If that evidence shows that they are a sockpuppet their contributions will be dealt with accordingly, if the evidence does not show that they are an editor who has been blocked or banned from participating here then their contributions will remain. Casting aspersions without evidence, as you have done above, is not permitted so either back up your accusation with evidence or remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe someone is a sockpuppet, then you need to deal with that in an appropriate forum (Which is not here), if you haven't got any evidence (technical or behavioural) to even explain your suspicions then do not make the accusation. Unless and until someone is blocked as a sockpuppet then accusing them of being one without evidence is not acceptable. Asking why someone hasn't been blocked as a sockpuppet without having presented evidence to demonstrate that they are in fact a sockpuppet is not acceptable. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Unless and until someone is blocked from editing Arbitration pages (specifically or otherwise) they get to participate here without being harassed in the same way as every other editor in good standing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you don't appear to have asked me a question. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that someone of your experience doesn't understand the world of difference between accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, without presenting any evidence, and blocking someone for being an obviously disruptive account. I generally do not find it a productive use of my time to respond to such fallacious commentary. The answer to the question "Why is X not blocked" is almost always because no administrator has seen sufficient evidence that they both can be blocked in accordance with the blocking policy and should be blocked. If you think that someone who is not currently blocked should be blocked, then either block them yourself (if you can and it is clear enough from their username and/or contributions that only that and the block summary is needed for another admin to verify the block is correct) or present the evidence in an appropriate forum. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, avoiding boundary testing was the main concern, but it does not seem to have altogether avoided it. Probably for most subjects, not just this one, any subject-based restriction will always do that if people involved are  greatly devoted to the  general topic area and not willing to switch interests altogether, or if the people involved are likely to do boundary-testing because they think they have been treated unjustly and see this as the most effective way of challenging the decision, or if they are people who would find the process intrinsically attractive. The insistence above that some topics are not related would seem to indicate the broad bans are needed, (not, for example, that anyone is in favor of Campus Rate, but there are extremely strong disagreements both about the way of dealing with the problem and about individual cases).  However,  they do place a possibly over-extensive degree of discretion upon individual admins. On balance, I would not narrow the bans.    DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Continued disruption in the topic area is a terrible reason to narrow the scope of the topic bans. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the restriction from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" to "sexism in video games" is unequivocally a narrowing of the topic ban. I understand that there has been some uncertainty about the exact boundaries of the topic ban (some of which appears to be in good faith, some of which is probably not), but I always feel that the best approach with "broadly construed" topic bans is to leave a wide berth. The topics mentioned in this CaAR, Lena Dunham and campus rape, appear to me to be toeing the line, not attempting to steer clear of the topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic ban restricts editors from "any gender-related dispute or controversy," not from "gender." GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with others, GorillaWarfare has a conflict of interest... Perhaps I've missed something, but where have others brought this up here? And which topic area is it you feel I should recuse from, and why? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed that "you have a conflict of interest" meant "you should recuse." I disagree that being willing to point out sexism when I see it, disagreeing with another arbitrator, or proposing a motion is indicative of COI, nor do I think I'm just causing issues here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with GorillaWarfare, the current scope needs to be enforced, and boundary testing dealt with, not the scope narrowed in response to it. Courcelles (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What they said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy. No, we don't think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy; we believe that a part of her biography deals with a gender-related controversy and edits to that part, and only that part, of her biography are covered by discretionary sanctions and by the various topic bans imposed during the GamerGate case. The rest of Dunham's biography is only covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN, but then again all biographies of living people are covered by it. Regardless of what Bernstein wrote, biographies of living women disliked by the American Right are not covered by the GG discretionary sanctions; and neither are the biographies of lesbian, gay, transgender, or gender-queer people. Specific parts of their biographies may be covered, if they deal with gender-related disputes, but, other than that, those biographies are only covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not accurate. The last clause of both the DS and the topic bans is "...(c) people associated with (a) or (b)...", b referring to "any gender-related dispute or controversy"  That would cover the Lena Dunham article in the entirety. Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. Please, disregard what I said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree that "biographies of lesbian, gay, transgender, or gender-queer people." are not covered merely by being LGBT, but can be covered if involved in gender-related disputes. That involves a judgment call, but once part of a person is covered, their entire biography is. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * However, the more I think about it, the more I feel dissatisfied with it; I'd like to amend it to: (a) Gamergate, (b) sexism in video games, (c) people associated with (a) or (b) and d) gender-related disputes and controversies, all broadly construed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely not inclined to narrow the scope of any restrictions here. Having watched several discussions over this issue, I've seen topic banned editors continue to blatantly engage in general discussion about GamerGate, let alone peripheral issues. This is normally done under the cover of an enforcement thread not against that editor, or clarification requests that are taken well beyond asking for legitimate and good faith clarification into lobbying and general discussion. If the disruption is still that ongoing, that is if anything an argument for more severity in the sanctions, not less. A topic ban means to drop the related items off your watchlist and stop having anything to do with them altogether, and if something is in a grey area, preferably, stay away, and at most, ask for clarification before touching it. This boundary testing must stop, but it certainly must not be rewarded by moving the boundaries. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bit far afield on the discussion of admin actions, but I don't personally see any trouble with robust administrative actions against new accounts whose only activity is to edit provocatively or disruptively in sensitive areas. That being said, such areas might also be ones that attract legitimate newbies, so we can't just say new editors may not participate in those areas at all, but we certainly can tell them they better tread very carefully. It's a hell of a balancing act, and as far as the questions asked by, I'm very glad we have admins willing to wade into a mess like that. I certainly haven't seen anything I'd classify as anywhere near abuse of tools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also absolutely disinclined to change the topic ban. With 4 700 000+ articles to choose from on the English Wikipedia, it's not as if there's a shortage of other stuff to edit. Also, unless people stop dwelling on the topic ban (and I include the endless requests here and at WP:AE), we'll need to introduce more robust measures to make people disengage.  Roger Davies  talk 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Topic bans need to be broad by their very nature. Broadly defined, broadly construed; the whole point is to get editors to move totally away from the areas which have been causing them problems, not to allow them to nit-pick and sea-lawyer their way into editing as closely to the issue as they possibly can. Steadfast oppposition to any narrowing of scope from this quarter. Yunshui 雲 水 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Yaris678 at 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by Yaris678
I have tweaked the wording of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions in a draft version at User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions. I don't believe this proposed wording changes the meaning of the text but I do believe it makes it easier to follow, especially for those not familiar with the workings of ArbCom.

The table below list these changes with an explanation of each one. I would appreciate it if the committee would consider these changes for implementation.

Moved from other sections

 * In reply to I'm happy to lose the word "only".  Yaris678 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to Adding in the words "broadly construed" sounds like a good idea. Yaris678 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In reply to That was just to avoid using a singular they or similar.  But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one.  i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..."  Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to The "severely or persistently" language is taken straight from Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to Is this something that can't be addressed by removing the word "only" as I suggested above? Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to I've got no problem with this being rolled into a housekeeping motion.  On the other point... I was very careful to not touch the bar.  Can you enlighten me on how this was raised?  If you think this is the wrong venue for such a discussion, can I suggest User talk:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions?  Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid
I think the part that "raises the bar" is Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks. In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Between this proposal and the one below by, is there anything in place for gathering these up for the next housekeeping motion? I'd suggest rather than just declining and parking these away, that perhaps there should at least be a page to hold onto these requests until such time for the motion to come together. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
The broadly construde part of my own Arb restriction is quite clear to me. On the 2 occassions that I breached it (on my own talkpage), the result was a 1-week block & a 1-month block. The question might be, are editors under arb restrictions being dealt with evenly when they breach. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

 * Ds-Alerts are a techno-bureaucratic abomination which should be marked historical as soon as possible. Let's look at the wording: ''The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding See #topic codes for options, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is blah blah


 * ''Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
 * This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
 * What rubbish. In other words, I pretty much have to lie / prevaricate, for the following reasons:
 * "This message is informational only" Do you think I just wasted too much of time reading through "To see whether a user has been Alerted to discretionary sanctions, ..." and doing that nonsense for "information only?" No, I think the editor is acting like a dweeb and it is my intent to rat them out at WP:AE if it continues.
 * "Don't hesitate to contact me " Actually, I'd greatly prefer it if you hesitate. If I thought there's any chance addressing you like a reasonable person would work, I'd have done it already rather than dealing with the ds/alert nonsense.
 * (Not really important, but) "authorised" "Discretionary sanctions is" "familiarise" ... do I sound like a Brit/Aussie/Kiwi/Indian et. al? I'm an American: Baseball, Mom, Apple Pie and "sanctions are," "authorized," "familiarize." I respect your dialect of English please respect mine.
 * Ds/alert are dehumanizing interaction for both the notifier and notifiee, contrary to the gestalt of the collaboration ideal of Wikipedia. The barriers to entry are over complicated instructions are the danger of getting sanctions if you post an alert 364 days after the last one. I understand the history; the newer system is an improvement over the prior "angst over warnings" system. But it's an unnecessary Rube Goldberg. We already have an existing, simple, easily and widely understood system for notifying and then enforcing remedies: the WP:3RR system. Please just use that. NE Ent 08:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
On point 3, add a bullet for the original omitted text "or other reasonable measure". Otherwise, these are great suggestions and I agree with all the other wordsmithing feedback submitted thus far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to your one-word answer "decline",, may I ask why? I mean, I understand we can do this during housekeeping time instead, but what about the substance of the proposal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
I'm surprised by this proposal after looking at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review where there were three rounds of consultation before Discretionary Sanctions wording was altered. Is it appropriate to suggest a rewrite here? Liz Read! Talk! 13:34, 18 March 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.

Improving the clarity of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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


 * Regarding coldacid's comment are they both on the arbwiki? There's also this which I'm informed has been transferred over to the arbwiki.

Improving the clarity of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * On a first read I'm inclined to agree with 1, 2 and 4 without comment. Point 3 though changes "any uninvolved administrator" to "uninvolved administrators", which could be interpreted as meaning an administrator may no longer act alone. I like the rest of the change though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So far I'm with Thrydulf. Yaris687's suggested change seems to work. Of course, I may have missed something being still green. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like I did. It's probably better handled in a general housekeeping motion with other issues as Roger suggests. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid I got the wrong end of the stick when you were asking at WT:AC about clarifications. I'd assumed you had some major points that needed urgently sorting ... As you know, DS is a committee procedure (with the force of policy) and changes can only be made by motion. Looking at your suggestions, none are urgent so best is to address them in the next housekeeping DS motion (probably in a couple of months). Incidentally, Point One is inaccurate and explicitly raises the bar at which DS can be imposed, which I'm sure was not intended. Thanks very much for your input,   Roger Davies  talk 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, DS isn't about "[imposing] restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment", that can be done by admin under normal admin discretion. Instead, it allows admins deal with any misconduct, even minor misconduct, in sensitive/hot button/tinderbox articles. ie zero tolerance.  Roger Davies  talk 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you make a good point there too. DS is typically for "edits about, or pages relating to [topic]" and are also about exporting disputes into fresh areas outside the specific area of conflict,  Roger Davies  talk 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep,  Roger Davies  talk 04:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strike the "only" and I don't see this makes a difference, so, totally indifferent, really. Neither set of wording has any problems. Courcelles (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty well indifferent on these too, and agree having them in with general housekeeping rather than as a special request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. AGK  [•] 00:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I submit that the following remedies are outdated, and therefore:
 * 1) clutter the list of discretionary sanctions and article probations.
 * 2) provide unnecessary complexity and instruction creep.
 * 3) place unwelcoming templates on article talk pages.

None of these remedies have been invoked for several years, if ever, one case has no admin action for nine years.

I have no doubt that there are other outdated remedies but these certainly are.

I propose that these remedies be struck

1
Case: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Remedy to be struck: Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles

Passed: 27 October 2011

Last admin action: Never (22 December 2010 for previous version)

2
Case: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Remedy to be struck: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (Amended version)
 * Also strike Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, since supervision remedy is already struck.

Passed: 8 March 2013

Last admin action: 24 July 2009

3
Case: Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Passed: 1 February 2008

Last admin action: 1 April 2008

4
Case: Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Passed: 2 January 2007

Last admin action: 3 March 2007

5
Case: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Passed: 9 November 2006

Last admin action: Never

6
Case: Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

Remedy 1: Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding Remedy 2: Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

Passed: 5 February 2008

Last admin action: 3 December 2010

7
Case: Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming

Remedy 1: Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming Remedy 2: Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (lapsed)

Passed: c. 6 February 2006

Last admin action: 12 June 2006

8
Case: Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Passed: 13 March 2008

Last admin action: 29 May 2008

9
Case: Requests for arbitration/Free Republic


 * Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
 * Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Passed: 29 March 2007

Last admin action: 29 February 2008

10
Case: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Remedy: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Passed: 12 October 2009

Last admin action: 12 March 2011

11
Case: Requests for arbitration/Election

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Election Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Election Enforcement: Requests for arbitration/Election

Passed: 1 July 2006

Last admin action: None

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

@Roger All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Delaying this for a short while is not a problem, though it is often better to break large tasks down, rather than heaping them up.
 * I would be interested to hear about this other initiative. It might have been worth pinging me about it, given the discretionary sanctions clear up I initiated last year.
 * It would be useful to explain why, for example, the log of admin actions ends in 2010 (Requests for arbitration/The Troubles): if there are four more years of undocumented admin actions, then this is a significant problem in its own right.
 * Note in regard to Armenia Azerbaijan 2 that DS notifications are not counted as admin actions, as any editor may make a DS notification.


 * Thanks T Canens, I have just found that log. I mentally threw my hands up in despair.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

@AGK - making it a table is a moment's work, unfortunately one that I am not allowed to perform here. I have created a table at Meta:User:Rich Farmbrough/Article probation. Feel free to import it, with attribution. You could, of course, have made the table yourself, instead of complaining about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Comment by T. Canens
The Troubles and ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions logs were moved to the centralized WP:DSLOG. T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 22 March 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.

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Clerk notes

 * This is the work in progress, plus I believe has a copy on the arbwiki. Or are talking about page in (onwiki) arbspace? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've got all of the old article probation remedies there but if you find any other please do let me know (I was only working from the list at WP:GS so I may have missed some which aren't logged there). Chuck them on the talk page and I can stick them into the table if you can't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, I agree with both points. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Comment: Thanks for looking at this, . As there is another initiative afoot to tidy up old sanctions, it's best I think to combine this one, and that one, along with other amendments in a single housekeeping motion in a couple of month's time. We probably need to tidy up some of the old cases and that can be done then too. I don't agree with all your analyses incidentally: DS for The Troubles was used last December and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 yesterday.  Roger Davies  talk 04:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we didn't do anything on-wiki until we have all time to actively participate in it. There is also a risk that this will all creep into a big deal, when in fact it all looks routine. After the very major review last year, that seems unnecessary. Best we turn to this again once we have the two current (and likely messy) cases out of the way,  Roger Davies  talk 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd also rather wait and do it all at once. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per above, and I would suggest this would have been tidier submitted in a table. AGK  [•] 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Quite a few of these are still useful.  All of them are harmless, and we're going to do a cleanup later this year. Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline for now per my colleagues, but we will look at these suggestions as part of the cleanup in a couple of months. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be good to actually set up another subpage for the upcoming tidying initiative. NativeForeigner Talk 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Seems reasonable, let's try and get it up a bit before we actually plan to action it for community comment. That being said with the current two cases + incoming (possible) case at ARCA, it might be a bit. NativeForeigner Talk 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation (April 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RGloucester at 15:44, 28 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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&diff=653902342&oldid=653898258

Statement by RGloucester
This matter came up at WP:AE. In responding to an AE request that I filed, Callanecc suggested that the discretionary sanctions for Manual of Style and article titles-related matters only applied directly to project space MoS and AT pages, rather than to edits to articles. He said, "And I agree that the short term, limited IBAN I quickly thought of won't solve the underlying problem; but, from my reading of the discretionary sanctions they can't be used to take the action (somewhat like Blueboar suggested) needed". This seems a bit absurd, if it is the case. These sanctions have not been used since 2012, insofar as I can see. Despite endless disputes in this area of conflict, most users are not even aware of their existence according to the standard AC/DS awareness procedure. Is the reason that they have not been used because they only apply absolutely directly to MoS and AT pages? Do these sanctions apply to edits to the article space? I would suggest from my own reading that they do. If they do not, one might as well consider revoking the sanctions, as they are not serving any purpose, and shan't do if that's what the scope was intended to be.
 * If this is indeed the case, would you or other arbitrators consider a motion to amend the DS so as to include all discussions/actions in the area of conflict (MoS and AT)? Without such a motion, the DS are toothless, useless, and should be revoked. It strikes me that remedy 1.2 applies directly to the type of MoS/AT disputes that have been ongoing. It is exactly the type of remedy needed in this area, even if these discussions do not take place on AT/MoS pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Has it ended the "edit wars", or has it simply moved to them to other pages? None of these disputes have stopped. They merely continue across hundreds of scattered pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho
The requestor himself, RGloucester, has been involved in article title disputes, especially with me. I would like to give you evidence, but the request is about clarification or amendment. Recently, he has been reported at WP:ANI for his actions and behavior, such as gaming the aftermath of requested moves at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. Well, I too am involved in such disputes without him. I have been requesting moves for a while, but I have dealt with warriors of article titles. Who is more disruptive: me for making many requests or RGloucester for his actions? If neither a clarification nor an amendment is enough, perhaps we should have a case involving the requestor himself and/or another case involving titles and capitalisation. I do want to request a case on him, but I haven't seen him going too far yet lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
I think some editors would benefit from reading and thinking about the comment I made here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 30 March 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.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse, obviously. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Recuse as a clerk, having stated an opinion as an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Update) I've asked the clerks to close this request as resolved, assuming a colleague does not request otherwise in the next day or two. AGK  [•] 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I find Callan's interpretation to be a reasonable one based on a direct reading of the scope (all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed) and a reading of the scope in context of the findings of fact. I am unsure if move discussions that relate to the article titles policy are covered by DS since the scope does not say all pages and discussions related to..., like Panderson's topic ban. What seems clear to me is that articles and the movement of articles are not placed under DS by this remedy. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe for discussions, no for page moves. If I remember correctly from when I was a clerk, the case came out of a number of disputes that raged on WP:MOS and WT:MOS in 2010-2012. The DS has ended the endless edit wars there and continues to keep the peace. To call it useless ignores this fact. Including page moves would be a massive expansion of the DS based on a single AE thread; I even have moved pages based on the MoS and haven't ended up in controversy for it. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The original case had a scope of the content of internal Wikipedia pages. The remedies were not written so as to, for instance, restrict all use of dashes and other MOS items: that would be difficult to enforce and could lead to ludicrous enforcement scenarios. I would therefore uphold the interpretation being disputed in this clarification request. AGK  [•] 23:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. The reading of the scope of sanctions is in line with the scope of the case and their wording. An expansion of them to cover all article space would be very broad indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of the sanctions, and their written scope, is limited to project space, and does not extend to specific, individual debates about what an article title should be. And the latter would be very, very broad indeed. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. The scope of the sanctions relates to project space pages about the Manual of Style, not to discussions about the titles of specific articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: American politics (April 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Casprings at 11:34, 21 April 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 Casprings
I am asking for clarification on what related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces means. Mainly, do these edits    violate the topic ban. This is the subject of a current discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arzel Clarification will enable the resolution of the discussion. Thank you.

Statement by Arzel
Anthony Watts is not a politician and I have made no political arguments. My approach to the American Politics TBAN is to avoid any articles which are under those categories. There are a ton of articles in those categories, so it is pretty broad. It is a reasonable approach, which reasonable people would assume makes sense. Additionally, American Politics affects pretty much every aspect of your life through regulations, specific legislation, political talking points. It is almost impossible to find something which someone somewhere would not be able to find some tangential connection. I was TBAN'd partially for supposedly not assuming good faith, I do find it ironic that no good faith has been afforded me by JPS, CaSprings, and others.

JPS, Do you know that I was TBAN'd by editors like Casprings for supposed incivility and battleground behavior? Your actions hear are far worse than anything I have done in the past. Where is your civility or assumption of good faith, the pile of unfounded attacks against me are growing quite fast. Same goes for you Casprings. Your claim to want to work collaboratively in the future has now rang false twice. You were not involved in this issue yet you apparently found time to come attacking me personally. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

,, , Regarding "Hand's up, don't shoot". As I stated in the AE, I don't see it as American Politics. The saying started as a result of the shooting of Michael Brown, and I felt then and feel now that it is a police/race relations issue. That some politicians later co-opted it does not seem relevant. It wasn't tagged as an American Politics article (my main metric). However, that said, if you want to consider it American Politics, fine. I don't care. I made one edit a month ago, completely unrelated to anything political, noting that editors were failing to discuss and edit war over a known fact with RS. I haven't edited it since, and hadn't planned on editing it again. If you all feel it is clearly related to American Politics, then go add an American Politics category to the article, simple, no harm done. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * here is the thing about HUDS. I had no belief that it was related.  I have asked a few times what exactly makes some people think that it clearly is, but have yet to receive a response as to what they think makes this the case.  And if it clearly is (in their minds) then it clearly should have this as a category.  I don't think it is a unreasonable expectation.  If you are going to TBAN someone from something, then they have to be able to know what is included in that group.  Since I honestly did not think it was related, I had no reason to even ask.  Now this is largely academic since I have not commented on it since and have had no intention to comment further.  Arzel (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , Well I think I am now starting to understand why some call it political. Local law municipalities are (universally from my experience) non-political elections in the US.  Most elections in at the local level in the US are non-partisan affairs, and this was not a government official that was being protested, but a police officer.  That was not a (IMO) political protest.  Like I say though, I have no intention to edit that article further, and I will concede the point. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the American Politics categories. There is a lot contained within those pages. The whole point of categories are to group like things together. I find it highly interesting that now people are saying that they really don't include things which are related. Seriously, why even have them? Arzel (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did I "deny" Watts article as being scientific? The groups Political and Scientific together do not equal everything, so it is possible to be neither. I would ask that you kindly retract that statement. I find it interesting that you use the word "deny" which means to not believe a known truth. The assumption is that you are saying that the article is both political and scientific as a matter of fact. How about you provide some evidence that it is a political article. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * General notes: Please stop calling me a climate change denier.  I find it highly insulting and damaging to the scientific process.  Arzel (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am confused by what you think was problematic about the Judith Curry article link. I was linking to an article showing problems with the AR3 predictions as related to global warming. I said that JPS wouldn't like it because he already had a predisposition regarding Curry. Furthermore, if that is "problematic" given my history, what about the history of JPS? I feel like you are holding me to a much higher bar there. Not to mention that I was called an idiot by Guy. I have remained civil throughout this process and have not been treated in kind and yet my behavior is problematic? Arzel (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps
I never understood how topic bans were supposed to work and here is an excellent example of the problem. Arzel is taking a political stand on a biographical article that is basically arguing that global warming denial is 1) a misnomer and 2) not political. You all found fit to ban him from political articles, so now we in the WP:FRINGE-editing community get to deal with his advocacy on articles related to global warming as he and apparently a good number of good faith admins see fit to say that this is not within the remit of his topic ban because there aren't any specific edits about American politicians, for example. Is such an outcome really the intention of the committee when they enact this kind of topic ban?

I think it's fairly obvious that Arzel is here to support an agenda that is related, broadly, to an American conservative political stance. There's nothing at all wrong with that except that the committee had deemed it fit to sanction him at least in part with a topic ban from American politics. It's clear to me that he will continue to support this particular agenda in any way he sees that he can, even if that means skirting the edges of this ban as long as the community allows him. Why ban in the first place if this is so unenforceable?

My opinion? Just lift the ban.

jps (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to plead astonishment that the committee would enact a topic ban "broadly construed" and then turn around and say that when someone makes edits in a "gray area" the topic ban doesn't apply. Like it or not, it is only the scientific consensus on global warming that is apolitical. Opposition to that consensus is necessarily political. Arzel's WP:FRINGE opinion that the science is not "settled" with regards to the fact that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere due to human action is not the main cause of the warming trend seen today is a political not a scientific stance. It's much the same way as if he had gone into some page and declared that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer or DDT didn't decimate bird populations or any of a number of other political opinions that masquerade as scientific claims. jps (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Request for clarification
 * Dear Arbitrators: Would it be possible for the committee to make a definitive consensus statement that would clarify what exactly the committee means by "broadly construed" in relation to topic bans? I would suggest that by analogy to normal discretionary sanctions, a single "uninvolved" administrator who thinks a topic banned user's toe has crossed the line should be enough, but the fact that admins are afraid to take action without this clarification being made maybe means the committee hasn't been clear enough in this.
 * jps (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
Uhm, it is at AE, that's why it's here now. What exactly do you mean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
I have not followed the US politics ArbCom cases, but I have to agree with jps above that climate change denial is indeed very much a political and nearly exclusively a US political topic. While science is a process, and while climate change is a complex topic, the basics of anthropogenic global warming are well understood and there is a strong scientific consensus. Three recent independent studies with different methodologies have all found agreement to the basic science to be around 97-98% of qualified scientists. In most of the world, this is accepted by parties throughout the political spectrum, with very few exceptions, most of them very much on the political fringe. The dissent is nearly exclusively driven by conservative "think tanks", which have managed to make this into a divisive political issue in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Two Kinds of Pork
Climate change denial is a world-wide phenomenon. In context of the edits made to the BLP, one would have to construe very broadly indeed to make that about US politics. Like bent over backwards broadly. As to "Hands up", when the Justice Department get's involved in a controversial subject, it's always political. Even though he shouldn't have made it, Arzel's claim of canvassing has merit, however seeking scalps is unseemly.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
It would avoid a lot of confusion and frustration if the committee simply struck the "broadly construed" qualifier. Some of the admins at AE are (in good faith) expressing the view that only "edits to add or remove mention of US politics" or "workings of US governments and interactions with those governments" fall under the ban. It would be hard to imagine more narrowly construed interpretations. Others (including myself) take the "broadly construed" qualifier more, well, "broadly." When language causes so much confusion amongst well-meaning people it's best simply to strike it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit
Agree with the point made by SBHS above. While CC may not be inherently political, the attempt to dismiss a peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and authored by a renowned scientist because the statements he makes in the book have political implications that the Wikipedia editor doesn't like would seem to breach the "broadly construed" qualifier. The discussion and material at issue do not directly relate to science, but to FRINGE positions and analysis presented by a blog that is documented as being funded by petro-chemical, etc., CO2-generating industries that are intent on discrediting the science supporting the scientific consensus and preempting government efforts to regulate the offending industries. The fact that there are obvious political issues implicated in the edits related to attempts to dismiss the Mann book and the characterization of "denialist", etc. with respect to the WUWT blog seems to call for attention if not considered to fall under "broadly construed".
 * In response to the misleading post below, I'm pasting one of Arzel's comments (referenced in the now archived AE case) in its entirety below.
 * "The change to the lead is really going against discussion. There is no consensus for this change and looks like edit warring. In addition the new lead has some serious logical issues.
 * The argument put forth is that "Denial" must be included for NPOV and that MOS doesn't matter, even though MOS says "Denial" is a NPOV word to avoid. I don't see how that can be justified. Also, it clearly fails MOS because it is not "widely" used.
 * The other argument is that skeptic [equals] denier. This is simply not true. The two words have different meanings in a literal sense. Those that are strong proponents of climate change have stated effort to say that they are the same in order to label a skeptic as a denier.
 * This leads to the logical problem. If they are the same, then why is there such a concerted effort to use the word "denier"? I would like a response from Manul and Ubikwit as why "denier" must be in the lead for NPOV reasons if the word "skeptic" is [equal] to "denier" It does not make sense other than to further promote the effort by climate change proponents to label skeptics as deniers even if that term is not widely used. I would call it OR if not for a couple of source which make the connection, but it is certainly not main stream as there are few that say they are the same.
 * Also, this is not a science article, so the continued refrain of "peer reviewed" has no place. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)"

Statement by DHeyward
The primary statement by skeptics is that the science is wrong or lacking. The fact that their disagreement interferes with another persons political objective is secondary. Watts doesn't make a political argument. Rather he states that the science others are basing their politics on is faulty. There is no evidence that he holds a political opinion as he makes personal choices that would make him a green party member (i.e. his home is solar powered). The people that most vociferously oppose Watts' blog have political positions that he jeopardizes but scientists without stated political objectives are not particularly critical. ---DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Anthony Watts is an American political figure. While climate change may be a global issue, climate change denial is unquestionably an issue of American politics, much more so than any other country, and the fact that Watts has received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute, an American political think-tank, clearly establishes that the blog and its author are American political figures.

It is the funding from and links with the Heartland Institute, more than anyhting else, that places this within the realm of US politics.

This edit removes a significant chunk of relevant text that establishes the political context of Watts' blog. Again, the attempt to portray climate denial as a legitimate scientific debate is at the heart of the American-dominated, politically-motivated climate denial culture.

Making contentious edits to a biography of an American climate denialist funded by an American political lobby group associated with climate denial, and whose work is cited by American climate denialist politicians, puts this into the realm of editing in the area of American politics, IMO.

The comment by jps above nails it. If Arzel is banned form American politics broadly construed, then he is banned from making these edits to this article. If the Committee thinks he should be allowed to make these edits to this article then they need to vacate the ban. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cardamon
Saying that a page is not related to American politics  unless it is in the category “American politics” seems to be construing your topic ban narrowly, rather than broadly. Cardamon (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
Some parts of Anthony Watts (blogger) are obviously political as diff 4 in the opening post easily demonstrates. That edit This edit touches on politics, broadly defined (duh). In my view its so blatant I'm not going to bother arguing the same point on the basis of the article text that was changed.
 * removed the RS "'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and  political  paralysis" (source Environmental Values journal
 * inserted the RS "Image  Politics  of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations"

That said, even though I disagree with Arzel's opinion on the underlying matter I think the AE complaint against him is a fine example of a misguided "gotcha" complaint. The goal of sanctions should be prevention, for the sake of better articles. "Gotcha" complaints are really truly disruptive, and this is that kind. Many editors at the underlying battlefield are displaying problem behaviors, but I don't think Arzel is one of them.

In sum NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, its politcal
 * No, Arzel's edits at Anthony Watts (blogger) do not require further sanctions
 * 1) Yes-OMG-Yes, other editors at that article are edit warring with opinions and VAGUEWAVEs and disruption but little evidence of seeking meaningful compromise

Statement by Zad68
I'm an uninvolved administrator commenting here because I had seen the request at AE, reviewed the discussion, dug into the several pages of ArbCom history, and was looking to close. The clarification of the scope of this topic ban from (as stated) "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" must be made in the context of why the topic ban was applied to the individual editor Arzel in the first place. In short the topic ban was placed because Arzel has had a long history of treating Wikipedia as a political ideological battleground and personalizing content disputes. Previous sanctions that tried to get Arzel away from that behavior hadn't worked, and ArbCom determined that Arzel was essentially incapable of avoiding that behavior when it came to American political topics--that was the reason for the topic ban.

So, evaluating this request at AE, I'm not working so hard trying to determine where a hard edge of "politics of the United States, broadly construed" might be drawn (as if that were possible), but rather I am looking to see whether Arzel's history of politicizing and personalizing content disputes is cropping up here.

Based on this, Arzel's edit I am most concerned about isn't any of the above, it's actually this one, where Arzel links to the blog site of Judith Curry, which describes itself as for "discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface," and Curry is active in American politics related to climate change. In this edit, I see Arzel personalizing the content dispute by titling the link "Something you won't like," and referring to Arzel's own expertise (unprovable on Wikipedia of course). This edit takes place inside a long article Talk page discussion here, where Arzel repeatedly knocks the conversation off-track from identifying the best-quality reliable sources and representing them accurately (the job Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing), as others in the thread were trying to focus on.

I'd like to emphasize that many of Arzel's other comments on the Talk page are fine, grounded in WP:PAG and avoid bad behavior. Even considering the above, Arzel's behavior at the Talk page isn't all that, and it's the kind of stuff that goes on every day on Talk pages of many contentious topics and usually isn't a problem worth a sanction. But the history of this particular editor makes it problematic and needing some kind of action.

So my view is that Yes Arzel's involvement at this article Talk page should be viewed as in the area of the topic ban, and if ArbCom agrees I'll probably go back to AE and close the request with a short block. 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding: I looked at the "Hands up" edit, I don't understand either the original Talk page comment from the IP that Arzel is responding to, or Arzel's response, and so it isn't a factor either way here. 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if these things get "closed" but discussion from the Arbs has petered out and the general consensus appears to be that the Hands Up edit was certainly in the area of the topic ban, and the Watts edits weren't. I will act on this at AE tomorrow, unless there's significant new argumentation here or this is closed by the Arbs in a different direction.   17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
There is a clear problem here, which has recurred many times. The form of words "broadly construed" was introduced to prevent wiki-lawyering, gamesmanship and fuzzy edges. It does no such thing, of course, it merely makes the boundary of the problem wider and more ill defined.

The fact that people are repeatedly coming back to the Committee for clarification of this term shows that it is not working. And taking the matter to AE to define the edges is worse - it often results in sanctions for matters that do not impinge on the original issues.

I would suggest a speedy ad-hoc, non-punitive but binding, resolution of "boundary disputes". It is pretty much clear I think that if there is a boundary dispute we are away from the causus belli - spending resource on disputes over the detail of something that was supposed to resolve disputes throws the whole system into disrepute.

It should, after all, be fairly easy to delineate any reasonable restriction, since it would be contrary to natural justice to impose a restriction without clear definition - indeed it opens the way for abuse of the restriction in terrorem, as we have not infrequently seen.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Flying Jazz
I haven't been involved with Arzel to the best of my memory. I'm here to write about whether the article under consideration would fall within the purview of American Politics. Arzel's edit at cites Jason Samenow's description of Watts's blog as a conservative/skeptic blog, and I share that view. The connection of the "Anthony Watts (blogger)" article to "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" follows directly from that view. My statement is not intended to reflect on Arzel or on other aspects of his edits. He may or may not have been "caught" somehow doing something that people on the other side of a battle think is "wrong." I don't know and have no interest in that matter. I'm here only to make a statement about whether encyclopedia article A falls within the purview of topic B which I regard as simply a matter of the logical analysis of plain text. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan
Two clarifications. Ubikwit says Arzel attempted to dismiss use of Mann's book because of "political implications" -- actually the objection was about using Mann for calling Watts and his blog denier / denialist, and it was initiated by me not Arzel, who took the milder line that "[Mann] can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice" etc. JzG says Watts "received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute" -- I see no evidence for that, it appears rather that Heartland helped raise money for a study of surface stations, as the article says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
The committee appears inclined to regard climate-change denial as not inherently political and thus not part of "America politics, broadly construed." In contrast, the committee recently held that comedian Lena Dunham’s biography was clearly part of "gender-related controversies, broadly construed," and that "Campus Rape" also was a "gender-related controversy, broadly construed."

I’m afraid you find yourselves in a tight place. You want to believe that climate change denial can be separated from politics, while campus rape cannot be separated from gender. Your critics will say that this shows a view of politics and of gender that lacks nuance. They may be more blunt. Yet the unfortunate administrators cannot indulge in nuance and must find some heuristic with which to make swift judgements in the face of heated argument.

How are they to guess what you intend? And how will journalists interpret that intent? One heuristic that explains the results here is, "do what the US Republican party and Movement Conservatism would do." That’s certainly consistent, but it's likely not the framing you'd prefer.

Your recent decisions are expansive in banning feminist editors, while taking a narrow view in banning conservative editors. There is doubtless a sound intellectual basis for your decisions, but you have not stated it or shown how to apply it in the general case. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:32, 27 April 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.

American politics: Clerk notes

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



American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This should probably go to AE. AGK  [•] 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I missed the link at the bottom of your statement. My colleagues appear to have since covered the relevant points here, so I have no further comment to make. AGK  [•] 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Having looked through the edits in question, I don't see the climate change edits to touch on its intersection with politics. Climate change intersects with politics, but it is not inherently political. Arzel would, of course, be topic banned from editing in relation to the interaction between climate change and American politics. Also, the area of climate change is itself covered by discretionary sanctions, so if Arzel's participation in that area outside its political aspects are disruptive, Arzel could be restricted under the ARBCC DS just like anyone else. The "Hands up, don't shoot" article is a different story. That is a slogan used by American citizens to protest the actions of American public officials. It is therefore unquestionably related to American politics, and that edit clearly violated the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to a couple of comments. To, as several people have noted here, the line between climate change and the politics surrounding it is often blurry and would be easy for you to step over. If you continue editing in this area, I advise you do so very carefully indeed, and stay away from anything that could be construed as touching on the political aspects of climate change. Tiptoeing around the edge of a topic ban inevitably leads to stepping over that line at some point; the idea is to stay well clear. Also, you are topic banned from any edits having to do with American politics anywhere at all, and there is no requirement for any category to be present for that to apply. If you're unsure whether something would relate to that, you're certainly welcome to ask for clarification here, but please do so before you start editing it. To , the final outcome would indeed be up to the admins at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained why in my first statement. "Hands up, don't shoot" was a slogan used by a group protesting an action by a public official. Discussing and protesting the actions of public or government officials is a political action, especially when it is coordinated. It happened in America. Therefore, it is related to American politics. Not everything you are prohibited from editing will have a particular category on it, so no, I'm afraid that's not a reasonable expectation or a way to keep yourself out of trouble in the future. Please read WP:TBAN, if you've not done so, for detailed information on how topic bans are interpreted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with Seraphimblade. If Arzel starts discussing American politics in relationship to CC, that would be a breach. And the "Hands up" edit violated the tb. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with SB and DW. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While there are non-political aspects of climate change denial, in the US they are massively overwhelmed by the parts that are political - JzG and Ubiwikt explain this well above. I also see that Arzel is denying that the Watts article is a scientific article, and denying that it is a political article, which seems to be trying to have it both ways to suit the point de jour - a blogger, paid by a political think tank, blogging about the science of climate change is both scientific and political. In short I do see the climate change edits as violating the topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the edit to Talk:Hands up, don't shoot violates the topic ban. The edits to the Watts article fall more in a grey area, but I'm not inclined to say they fall under the scope of the topic ban, even broadly construed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate coming late to these things and having to just say, "per so-and-so", but: per Seraphimblade and AGK. The Hands Up, Don't Shoot edit would appear to be a topic ban violation and should go to AE, the Watts edits, not so much. Watts is undeniably figure of political influence, but Arzel's edits did not address his politics nor the impact of his work on politics; I wouldn't regard them as a TBAN violation. Yunshui 雲 水 21:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (May 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by A1candidate at 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Complementary and Alternative Medicine

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

Statement by A1candidate
After the Committee declined my request for abitration, I was prepared to move on and slowly disengage over some time, but yesterday, Kww came to my talk page and made the following comment:


 * No, DrChrissy was topic-banned because he interpreted fairly accurate descriptions of his behaviour as "personal attacks" rather than address the root problem, and because he did not show any sign that he was capable of understanding what he had done wrong. WP:NPA is not a license to describe all criticisms of your behaviour as a "personal attack", nor is it intended to prevent legitimate criticism from occurring. Your own similar attempt to take JzG and I to Arbcom failed for much the same reason. No one was leaping up to champion either JzG or I: both of us are brusque and neither of us is widely loved. Still, it would appear that most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism rather than being "personal attacks", as I can promise you that if either of us did attack editors, we would lose our bits.

Can the Committee please clarify if Kww's assertion (in bold) is correct? Thanks. -A1candidate  09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If there was no Arbitration decision, how can Kww claim that there was??? -A1candidate  09:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to Yunshui


 * Reply to Kww

You have apparently ignored the statements of at least 2 arbitrators who accepted my request with the following comments regarding WP:CIVIL:


 * Salvio guliano: Those who oppose those they perceive as doing the POV-pushing should of course strive to be civil


 * Thryduulf: Just because someone holds a view that differs from the mainstream consensus does not give anyone the right to be uncivil towards them

Given that 3 arbitrators voted decline (without further comments) and the rest of the Committee did not even vote, how can you claim on my talk page that "most arbitrators found our criticisms of your behaviour to fall within the bounds of legitimate criticism"? If any arbitrator did make such a finding, they should state it clearly and without ambiguity.

-A1candidate  18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Thryduulf

Thank you for explaining your statement.

-A1candidate  12:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I think it's a fair assertion that if most of the Arbitration committee had, upon reviewing the evidence, found that JzG and I were indeed guilty of attacking A1candidate, we would have been admonished at the very least or desysopped. Instead, the declines were generally of the form "I don't see much in terms of concerns beyond the administrator conduct, which I don't think rise to the level of a case", "the allegations about the administrators are insufficiently compelling to merit a case", or "I do not see evidence to warrant opening an arbitration case".&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's pretty clear this isn't going anywhere, a clarification for the record: my comment was in response to A1candidate specifically referencing the language of the failed Arbitration request in a way that clearly indicates that he did not understand that he hadn't provided evidence of personal attacks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
I just became aware of a1candidate a few days ago, but they have very quickly made an impression on me as a busybody who desires to order other users around and stir drama. I mean really, look at this. they have decided that DrChrissy needs them for protection and they are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to bully others into submission and get the community-imposed topic ban on DrChrissy overturned. There is nothing for the committee to do here, except to reject this request and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This seems like a bit of pot stirring and an exercise in point making to me. Perhaps there's a semantic conversation to have here but honestly I don't see it. The consensus amongst ARBCOM members seemed specifically that no case was merited. If you do not agree with Kww position, perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree then bring it here. To remind A1candidate, I would like to reference this case here. Specifically the close. While this is not AE it would stand to reason that conduct is actionable here and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges can result in sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Arbitrators, it's fairly obvious that what happened here is that after A1's case was declined, KWW went by his page to taunt him about it and try to provoke him into a escalated response to try to use it to get him banned. Notice that Beeblebrox has fallen right into helping out with that plan. WP's admin drones' behavior is so predictable. That's why KWW was doing this. Your responses are further enabling this type of behavior and this is one of the reasons why so many good editors have departed WP, because they're fed up with seeing or experiencing this kind of shite. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 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.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Clerk notes

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



Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Since there was never a Complimentary and Alternative Medicine case (it was declined), there is no Arbitration decision to clarify or amend. Yunshui 雲 水 09:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe we are being asked to clarify here the reasons why we decided to decline a case, which when done in good faith (as here), seems to be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I don't have to review this now and don't recall it in sufficient detail to express an opinion on the actual request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That quote of mine is not a finding of fact that anyone has been uncivil, it is a statement of my personal opinion about the general philosophy that should be applied in the topic area (and indeed elsewhere). I made it in response to allegations of incivility, but I offered (and still offer) no opinion (as an arbitrator or as an individual) whether those allegations are correct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Yunshui.  Roger Davies  talk 10:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Yunshui and RG. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. This venue is for clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, not to discuss declined cases. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And me. AGK  [•] 07:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A binary decision such as to decline or accept a case can be reached under different reasoning by every arbitrator, so trying to come up with a collective "why didn't we take this case" would be impossible. Decline. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. A case decline is not a decision that can be clarified or amended, and I think those who provided reasons for declining were clear in what they said. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Infoboxes (May 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
 * 2) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create. (#4)
 * To be worded.


 * All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)
 * Is a good idea but had no consequences.

Statement by Gerda Arendt
About two years after the infoboxes case I look back. Reminder: It was requested because - after infobox opera was introduced - too many infoboxes were reverted, for example Rigoletto. I counted 59 cases before and during the case. Most of them have an infobox now, including Götterdämmerung, The Rite of Spring and Handel. The project is at peace. Missa Dona nobis pacem.

I am quite happy with the restriction of two comments per discussion because it saves me time. However, I think that it should be more evenly observed by all participants in discussions, not only me.

I believe that the restriction of adding infoboxes to only "articles I create" supports the ownership of articles and should be dropped. I promise to not add an infobox where I believe it is not wanted, - actually that's what I always did.

I wish that the clause about "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" would be observed more. Look at current discussions such as Talk:Beethoven, subtract what contradicts this clause and see how little is left. (Did you know that even Beethoven had an infobox, until 26 December 2014?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Beethoven was closed in favour of an infobox. It pleases me how similar it looks to the one proposed in the workshop of the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

RIP Viva-Verdi. We got the sad news only yesterday. As far as I know he didn't engage in infobox disputes, but silently all of Verdi's operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: regarding "better ... than she previously did": would you please say more precisely where you think I did something wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a case, my first meeting with arbcom. I didn't even understand the terms, thinking "motion" meant setting something in motion. I promoted the new template, which is by now accepted. I said "A way to determinate if a new infobox is to be kept permanently needs to be found, a consensus respectful of the principal contributors, but also looking at usefulness for readers and site consistency." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I leave it to the arbitrators to see that your diffs don't show what you claim, and find the attribute "senseless" for debates surprising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The diff you present for a 'related "senseless debate"' shows a sensible debate. - I think to alleviate all "remedies" of the case (which wasn't looking at facts of 2013 and is outdated even more in 2015) would make a lot of sense, but I didn't dare to ask that much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Nielsen example shows that I am able to evaluate when not to mention the topic, even without a restriction. It also showed a learning process of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: The current restriction does not allow me to add an infobox to an article which I expanded significantly (for example Polish Requiem), only to those which I turned from red to blue (or made a redirect an article). It also doesn't allow me to add an infobox to an opera, while I could help to continue doing what Viva-Verdi did. All works by Verdi have an infobox, several by Wagner including Götterdämmerung (remember my question: "If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" - still on the talk), Don Giovanni, Carmen, but there are hundreds more missing one. - I have added infoboxes to all "my" articles since the case (including three FAs), - none of them was reverted or questioned. - I believe that infoboxes are good for our readers, and that will not change. - I know by now to avoid certain biographies by certain authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tim: "Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors", please let me understand better by providing one example of me causing such alarm. (I will look up "depondency".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Please give me one example of what you mean by a general "forcing infoboxes into articles". - Admitted: I am proud to speak up for good-faith edits of new editors who have no idea that they enter a minefield. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I have no list of "infoboxes targeted", only a (incomplete) list of infoboxes that have been reverted. That list began as part of the evidence for the arb case, it had 59 entries then. As of today, 15 of those have no infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I know you as a man of compromise, remembering that you offered an "identibox" for and a version accepted by the Main editor. I think Carmen looks more attractive and more informative, and the discussion was sensible. Michael Tippett was nominated for TFA and appeared without ever mentioning the topic infobox. - Your reflections in the Signpost make sense to me. - Could you perhaps word rules or recommendations to be observed by all participants in infobox discussions? Such as only one revert, then discuss. I really enjoy "only two comments". (I asked others before, a former arbitrator, a lawyer and a participant in the case). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I removed myself from what you call the infobox-arena for one year. That year was over on 11 September 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: My behaviour was to insert infoboxes in opera articles too soon after they were made available by project opera, which led to reverts and sometimes longish discussions. What changed is that now the operatic infoboxes are mostly accepted by the project. - I have not inserted an infobox in a TFA, not even suggested one for a FA before being featured. I have not suggested one for articles of authors where I knew they don't want one. (I sometimes made mistakes in that respect, but am willing to learn.) I have collaborated in DYK with Nikkimaria and Smerus, the other parties in the case, with whom I shared one of the better debates about an opera infobox, literary, short and amusing. (I don't know if the arbitrators noticed that.) - I do question when editors new to the problem of infoboxes for classical composers and other biographies are reverted without explanation. I also was shocked in disbelief that editors improving an article to FA threw out an infobox that had served readers for eight years. I am sorry if by doing so I hurt people, - it was not intended.

I am on a voluntary 1RR and should know by now to avoid articles of Main editors who dislike infoboxes, therefore nobody needs to be afraid of me. Regarding infoboxes (and I mean just at-a-glance orientation about a subject's position in place and time), I have a simple belief: if they help a few people, why not? They help me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: You decline what? A rewording of the restriction to not reflect ownership? (That is all I asked to have amended.) Additional question: What behaviour precisely do you think I need to reform? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Back from a few days off, singing Salve Regina, I thank RexxS for wording better than I could the things I have not done. I have not ever added an infobox where I thought it was contentious, but sometimes made mistakes in that respect. I think I improved my evaluation.

@PumpkinSky: I am delighted to see your signature again! - You missed a lot in the two years you were absent. Nikkimaria who reverted the most in 2013, doesn't do that any more in 2015. She learned. The number of noticed conflicts is also declining (more than 60 in 2013, more than 30 in 2014, only 8 so far in 2015), another step in the right direction. Of the 8, only 6 are still reverted, by Jerome Kohl, Tim riley, SchroCat, Smerus, Sagaciousphil and Opus33, who all acted in good faith, I assume.

Look at Carl Nielsen to see an article with no infobox conflict and admirable collaboration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion: a nice movement, I thank four people for supporting something amusing, "If after six months Gerda Arendt has not blocked under this motion", - I don't plan to block ;) - I don't feel I should change anything in the motion, would someone else do it, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Gerda is an incredibly prolific and expert editor who is not just liked but loved by many even those who at times disagree with her. She has deliberately used a restriction, that of making only two comments, to improve herself and her editing. This is ideal editor behaviour. Why not expand her abilities to edit. I don't see any reasons why she should not be given the chance to edit in a more expansive way; she's earned it, seems to me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC))


 * AGK could you clarify? Why does Gerda's response merit a decline? She is asking for clarification. You declined in a very general way without specifying anything and with out any evidence that Gerda has not edited per her restrictions. I believe all editors want to trust the admins and arbitrators who control the sanctions. We can only do that if those in control very specifically outline the concerns, so we can see that there is good reason to limit another editor's editing, and that the restrictions aren't the result of grudges or anger or positions which indicate non-neutrality in dealing with other people. I am  not accusing anyone of this but with out clarification no one knows what the problem is or how to correct it. WP is  not punishment based; it should be an environment were editors help each other even arbs. As a community we have to trust you, but trust takes time, patience, and fair dealing with the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by OccultZone
Looking at her contributions, I would say that her editing scope is wide and her edits are very beneficial to en.wiki. and after so much experience that she earned, she would better know what to do with infoboxes than she previously did. Similar to Littleolive oil, I believe that she should be given chance to broaden her range.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt I was pointing to the case concerning infoboxes and that it lead to the imposition of restrictions on a number of editors. I just said that you must be knowing better about it, than you did previously.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and that's the plus point.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:50, 11 May (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
It is my profound opinion Gerda Arendt shouldn't be left near any infobox (discussion), ever.


 * The current unnecessary content forking (note: content forking, not POV forking) of BWV 243 and BWV 243a rooted in Gerda Arendt's prejudice regarding infoboxes: "243a ... 243 ... I "strike" by not adding to articles without infobox ;)" (diff 1)


 * "Farming" tensions regarding infoboxes (diff 2)


 * Beethoven infobox:
 * Treating infobox discussions as "votes" (diff 3)
 * Typical indirect statement of argument, a technique rarely beneficial for the quality of a debate: "... what would a reader say who never heard the name Beethoven before? Perhaps: ..." (diff 4) – a bit pretentious about "knowing" other people's preferences, instead of clarifying her own.

On the whole, whenever Gerda gets involved in an infobox debate this never has a soothing effect on tensions, drawing a consensus nearer, more often tensions are increased, by a deep rooted "I will not be convinced by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude.

I'm not really convinced by the quality of the content of infoboxes Gerda produces. I remember these often need adjustment (which often isn't conceded to unless after a lot of senseless debate and reverts, e.g. diff 5) It is my contention that Gerda would be involved a lot less in tensions regarding infoboxes when she would be able to produce higher quality infoboxes, which is however something difficult to prove by diffs.

Gerda didn't contribute to remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion..." I don't say she should have, but asking here to alleviate some of the remedies of that case, while not exploring the more positive ones is, in my eyes, sanctimonious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ad diff 5: illustration of related "senseless debate" --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing "sensible" in starting a third talk page section about the infobox (diff 6), overriding active discussions (diff 6a, diff 6b) without actual content contribution to the issues being discussed. Illustrates "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that". Confirms imho that Gerda Arendt should not be left near any infobox (discussion) in the best interest of Wikipedia's content: Gerda Arendt's self-realization of how she behaves in that field is zero. The remedies of the infobox ArbCom case proved ineffective to ameliorate that, so the best solution, again IMHO, would be to take her out of that particular arena entirely, at least for a year or so, and re-evaluate after such period whether the state of affairs regarding infoboxes has improved or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? By now Gerda Arendt should know not to promulgate publicity like that, and not to post flawed summaries anywhere. As a token regarding nature of intentions please remove my name (and any link to my user/talk page) there without delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. I ping people whom I mention – tx, but better would have been not to mention me on that page at all, so I wouldn't have seen this nauseating interaction between the initiator and one of the active Arbs of this amendment request. After having been forced to see this... maybe consider recusing yourself from the current request, the mentioned interaction display is far from enlightening. I don't see the need to treat this public amendment request anywhere else but here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit accepted Gerda Arendt's self-aggrandizement at face value (as if I would have been less motivated by such concerns, so no that's not how she "... arrived in conflict with Francis Schonken ..."). The out-of-proces presentation of so-called additional evidence triggered no concern whatsoever... There was also no "previous" in this interaction as to be exempted by "Previous routine ... interactions are not usually grounds for recusal", so I don't think there's much to be found in using ARBPOL as an excuse here. I'd like to be able to take active arbitrators serious. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * please stop creating diversions, this page is not the place to start deploying remedy 6 of the Infoboxes case, and even less under your conditions – I'm as much a man of compromise as the next guy, and my recommendations to you are clear: remove yourself from the infobox arena, completely, for at least a year. General recommendations regarding participants in infobox related issues can't even technically be treated here, per the initiator's selection of involved users. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "...over on 11 September 2014" ... make that 6 September 2014 - oh, wait, that's around the time when the next round of this time-sink began. Removing Gerda Arendt from the arena apparently works to make treatment of infobox issues go back to normal. Maybe make it somewhat more than a year, starting today. And no returning to that arena before the arrogant "I will not be persuaded by anyone else's arguments – my prejudice rises above that" attitude has been given up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Short year indeed! – Please make it at least a real time year this time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. Carl Nielsen example: Talk:Carl Nielsen, Featured article candidates/Carl Nielsen/archive1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox etc show Gerda Arendt staying out of the infobox arena on that one. No big surprise: it works. I reiterate my proposal to expand that approach to all infobox-related involvement by Gerda Arendt for at least a year. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re. – this might actually work and I see no problem living by it when it passes. III) might be a bit more explicit that inappropriate WP:CANVASSING outside the actual discussion might be experienced as disruptive to a discussion too, speaking from experience that Gerda Arendt has had difficulty grasping this concept, and might thus endanger her parole without realising. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tim riley
Gerda has most honourably drawn my attention to this page, knowing full well that devoted as I am to her in all other regards I strongly disapprove of her zealotry with regard to info-boxes, and that I will – as indeed I do – oppose any easing of the restraint on her in this respect. Even with the current restrictions Gerda manages to cause much alarm and despondency on the subject to other editors who hold equally conscientious views to the contrary.  Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on Gerda! See SchroCat's comments below. It's no good doing passive-aggressive on us at this stage.  <font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
I oppose any relaxation of the restrictions, given the disruption this editor still causes with IBs. For example, after three comments on the thread in the Talk: Laurence Olivier page, and a warning on 16 March 2015 from to advise that the "two comment limit, in discussions about Infoboxes, is a bright-line rule", and that any further breaches would face sanction. It was something of a surprise to see a fourth comment on 26 March 2015 in the same thread. It seems that this part of the restriction hasn't been adhered to, and the pattern of behaviour has not changed as much as has been claimed. I'll also add that following postings on IB-related matters to my talk page and directly to me by email, I have also had to ask Gerda not to post to my talk page any more. – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ssilvers
I also oppose any relaxation of the restrictions for all the reasons mentioned by SchroCat. One can see from Gerda's statement above that she is actually proud of her role in forcing infoboxes into articles where (I would argue) they do not provide any value. I think Gerda is a nice person, but this infobox zealotry, as Tim riley calls it, is destructive to the project by sucking away the time of other editors that they would prefer to spend creating content and by increasing the stress level of every discussion on the subject without actually adding any useful analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia
Francis Schonken gets it right (also agree with Tim Riley, Ssilvers and possibly for the first time ever, SchroCat). In fact, rather than relaxing any restriction, I for one would be a much happier editor if Gerda were restricted from using the thank button or the ping button or having anything to do with the ongoing "metadata" issues, so my watchlist could be uncluttered by her frequent and irritating "observations". Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really feel empathy here for, one of our finest writers ... it is time we recognized the damage to content creation caused by the metadata fan(atic)s, and the ongoing underlying conflict that has been furthered by ... and enabled ... and allowed to be furthered by ... such a small group of adherents. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld
My initial outlook is similar to those above. Heck no. However, this is difficult because Gerda is otherwise a lovely person (at least in general on wikipedia) and it saddens me that an editor like Gerda should ever have to have sanctions imposed upon her though. My main concern isn't in general with her, she's not going about forcing infoboxes on every article and that's like that's all she does. It is actually a small percentage of what she does, even if enthusiastic. In fact in recent weeks I don't think I've seen her mention infoboxes. Even in the most difficult of situations, she's never aggressive, sarcastic, yes, but never aggressive. It's as Ssilvers says about the time wasting and stress that occurs from the discussions involving Gerda/Mabbett and Schro/Cass/Tim/myself etc when an article an infobox might be removed from an article during the FA promotion. I really think it needs to be avoided and a solution provided. I'm sure Mabbett thinks of me as an enemy now, but otherwise I've long supported the work he does on reducing the redundancy in infoboxes and simplification. I just simply disagree that an article must have an infobox for the sake of it and his approach to it. I'd support the removal of the restrictions if Gerda could agree to respect the decision of editors surrounding an infobox once a featured article is promoted, and to avoid adding infoboxes or being involved in disputes or stirring on related talk pages with any of the editors above. In general, she should be allowed to add infoboxes to her music articles or whatever she is doing, but should be advised to stay away from those time consuming long disputes. I'd support a trial run without restrictions if she can avoid being involved with infobox disputes with the group of editors I mentioned, and to delete that list she keeps of articles to be "targeted" with infoboxes as it's a potential area for conflict. If she can't agree to respect the decision of editors who put in the massive amount of work needed to promote articles then I oppose, but I'm always open to the possibility of somebody changing and always want to think the best about somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda, Yes I know the list was originally drawn up for the arb case, but you have been updating it. It does look to me like you're keeping tabs on what needs an infobox added, even if that's genuinely not the main purpose of the list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Yes, that's the main reason I've been outspoken against infobox enforcement on here. I believe when promoting an article to FA that editors should decide on infobox or no infobox before being promoted and that view respected at a later date. If they put in that great effort needed to promote an article they should have the say on the infobox matter I believe. And it's not as if we oppose infoboxes everywhere, I encourage them in things like settlement articles, with a pin map, but in arts biographies I believe I share the same view with yourself and others that their use is very limited if not redundant. I believe arb should pass something banning the protest of them on TFA today and in general once an article is promoted, at least for a year of two anyway. When it's reached a point that several editors are put off actually contributing an FA or oppose even the showing of their great efforts on the main page on TFA day then it's clear that it's gone too far. With Gerda though, I don't see a general drive by her to frantically add infoboxes to every article under the sun, it tends to be music/arts featured articles, and those contributed by Tim, Brian, Cass, Schro and myself I see her speak out more on. I think that needs to be acknowledged here, and a solution to deal with that which is the heart of the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brianboulton
In 2011 Gerda was a co-nominator, with me and Tim riley, in the successful FAC nomination of Messiah. It was a great collaboration, based on mutual respect and with never a moment's controvery over infoboxes. Her disruptive obsession with these boxes developed later, and led to these restriction being put in place. She was at the time, I believe, treated more leniently than her co-offenders, because of the excellent work she had otherwise done for the encyclopaedia, and I thought this consideration might temper her future behaviour. Unfortunately I was wrong. I hate to say it, but she is the main reason why I  no longer write opera or music articles for Wikipedia, and why I oppose the appearance of my music FAC noms at TFA – I just can't deal with the likely hassle. Until she shows some practical recognition that her actions have hurt people, the restrictions should remain or be tightened. Relaxing them now would in my view be giving her licence to create more trouble. I am deeply sorry to have to write this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
It's time for the restrictions to go. Gerda has shown a clear ability to work within them and in fact has often commented that some of them she has found to be useful (1RR, for example). That said, it is still time to lift the restrictions. One reason is that editors under restrictions are often subject to a game of "gotcha" by other editors and thus these restrictions get to the point where they generate more heat than light. Another reason is that - to those who somehow worry about Gerda - it's clear that she's managed to work within them and has expressed willingness to avoid the circumstances that gave rise to the situation in the first place. Third, In the real world, people get off "probation" automatically within a set time, only on wiki is it an apparent life sentence unless one begs forgiveness. I think it's time to drop the stick, drop the restrictions and see how things go. Frankly, I think Gerda has gone above and beyond. So I support Gerda's request. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, what strikes me here is the incivility of Gerda's "opponents" in response to her sincere statements that she "gets it' about who and what to avoid. If there ever was a case for "you get your restrictions lifted when you understand the issue," this is it. Gerda gets it! Probation and parole is ended, Gerda has paid her debt to the wiki, now let it go.  God knows that  and some of the others here will be lying in wait to say "GOTCHA!" if she is not being honest.  The vitriol here needs to end and I do wonder if the members of arbcom are reading some of the baiting and bad faith commentary that's here.  AGF, for heaven's sake!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
I find 's approach to this request problematic. No evidence has been brought forward illustrating any behaviour by Gerda since the infobox case closed on 11 September 2013 that a disinterested viewer would find fault with. There are no diffs of behaviour that would cause concern anywhere above. Unless of course you find Francis Shonken's desperate attempt to discredit her by pointing to her "support infobox" comment anything more than a smear. Just look at the comments preceding Gerda's there: "Support Infobox"; "Oppose infobox"; "Support Infobox" - why shouldn't Gerda express her opinion in that debate the same as anyone else? In fact there were another 12 editors who wrote "Support" or "Oppose" as they made their contributions to that debate. How can Schonken seriously criticise Gerda's comment there? Does he think the Arbs don't follow diffs, because anybody who does can see that Gerda has behaved perfectly reasonably on that page.

So with no evidence of problems, AGK decides to require Gerda to prove a negative by asking her to supply evidence that she has "reformed". Reformed from what? The only finding of fact in the case was So Anthony: You need to understand that restrictions designed to calm down a situation in 2013 are now well past their sell-by date. I'm not interested in your concept of "re-litigation"; I'm only interested in seeing restrictions that no longer serve any purpose lifted from an editor whose value to the encyclopedia is beyond doubt. I just hope the other arbitrators will actually read the prior case, look at the evidence presented and not be fooled by unsubstantiated attacks. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion, including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial." (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes)
 * Has Gerda added any more infoboxes sytematically? No.
 * Has she added them without prior discussion? No.
 * Has she added them to articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial? No
 * I'm pleased that you're looking for ways forward and I would encourage other Arbs to consider your suggestion. The finding of fact in the original decision was wholly concerned with Gerda adding infoboxes, perhaps too enthusiastically. If Gerda were on some form of parole (hardened criminal that she is!), I wonder if we could persuade an uninvolved administrator to act as a sounding-board for her: so that if she were to be in any doubt, she could ask them if they thought an addition might be considered controversial, or whether prior talk page discussion would be better - or even when not raising the issue at all would be the best option. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that you're looking for ways forward and I would encourage other Arbs to consider your suggestion. The finding of fact in the original decision was wholly concerned with Gerda adding infoboxes, perhaps too enthusiastically. If Gerda were on some form of parole (hardened criminal that she is!), I wonder if we could persuade an uninvolved administrator to act as a sounding-board for her: so that if she were to be in any doubt, she could ask them if they thought an addition might be considered controversial, or whether prior talk page discussion would be better - or even when not raising the issue at all would be the best option. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PumpkinSky
Really AGK? Are you serious? Per Rexx. Not only is Gerda one of the nicest most helpful editors ever, but you let the real problem child off in the original case--NikkiMaria. Get a dose of reality and lift these appalling sanctions. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
First I do have to acknowledge Thryduulf. True integrity can be hard to come by, and it should be revered.
 * OK - way back when I requested that Arbcom look at the iBox issues - what followed was, to say the least, laughable. Not only were ALL the sanctions handed out to only one side - but in Gerda's case ... without ANY prior notification.  Not only had she never been blocked - but she had never even been warned!!  I do understand that I/we did not provide "evidence" against the oh so holy "anti-box" group; but rather the "pro" group simply defended their actions.  Well - there's no use crying over spilled milk I suppose.  So here we are a couple years later.  Things seem to be working out on an article to article basis .. and Gerda asks for some common sense.  Low and behold - read the above from the "anti" group.  I read somewhere that someone actually  found fault because Gerda used the "Thank" function ... REALLY??? Just wow.  What a sad and pathetic life some people must lead.
 * Oh well - I figured since I was the one that brought the original case, I should make some sort of statement. You Arbs do whatever it is you do - I honestly don't give a fuck.  Pardon my french, but I can read above and below - and it's pretty easy to see where the good folks are .. and where the mean, nasty, vindictive, petty, self-righteous, arrogant, ... (ok, I'll stop) folks are.  Have fun - look in the mirror - whatever. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * addendum: It absolutely amazes me when the so called "upper echelon" of Wikipedia outright enable the cruel and suppressive behavior that we bear witness to above.  But hey, as Kermit the Frog would say: "That's none of my business"  — Ched :  ?  04:19, 23 May 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.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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



Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * recuse. I am not neutral with regards the infoboxes topic and was heavily involved in this case before I was an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * apologies if I'm not reading this right, but the core request is to drop restrictions on you adding Infoboxes? Agree the current restriction encourages ownership by elevating article creators over other people. Noted that you agree not to add an Infobox where it is not wanted, presumably by a consensus of other editors in the relevant page. But not sure why you need the restriction lifted - if a consensus of other editors wants an infobox in an article, can't they simply add it themselves? Let me know if I've missed a key point, happy to consider further either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Support lifting the restriction on Infobox addition, on the basis outlined above - that Infoboxes will not be added to any article where a consensus of editors opposes that addition. I note in passing that consensus for or against Infoboxes might exist or be established for an individual article or a group of them, presumably via WikiProject discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ARBPOL appropriately provides for recusal under certain conditions, none of which apply in this instance. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm unsympathetic to the arguments that the restrictions are convoluted or unusual, and should therefore go. We generally don't allow re-litigation of the proposed decision. Consequently, the only argument I'd find compelling would be one demonstrating that the restrictions are no longer necessary to the smooth running of the project. I would therefore like to hear from Gerda as to how precisely their behaviour has reformed since the restrictions were imposed. AGK  [•] 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline based on the response submitted by Gerda. AGK  [•] 08:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am fairly neutral on this issue -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is time for these to go, perhaps under a parole system for a quarter. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I could support some sort of parole system, but wouldn't be fully comfortable lifting the restrictions without one. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Infoboxes)
Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Proposed, given the idea of a parole period seems to have some support, and trying to incorporate what I think is the sense of Euryalus' comment. This has been sitting here too long.  Tinker as desired.  Courcelles (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A little more restrictive than I might have preferred, but I can get behind this as an interim measure to help Gerda back to regular editing. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Yunshui. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Doug Weller 11:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable way forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda has show positive change since the case, though I do think that this less restrictive parole is needed to ease them back into the editing area. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Amendment request: Acupuncture (June 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by A1candidate at 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last.
 * Please consider repealing these sanctions

Statement by A1candidate
This is an unfair sanction. Despite my demonstrable attempts to closely follow the relevant behavioral guidelines during a content dispute, I am now placed under severe editing restrictions and more importantly, my perfect record has been stained with a permanent log over here. According to the guidelines of core behaviorial policies such as WP:AVOIDEDITWAR:





Everyone can check my most recent contributions at the acupuncture page in order to verify that I had followed this guideline very closely. First and foremost, I made only a single (neccessary) revert to prevent a source from being distorted. Then, I sensed that temporary page protection may soon be necessary to avoid a potential edit war, so I quickly approached two administrators and asked them for the appropriate page protection (as suggested by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Next, I backed off from the article immediately and stopped making any further edits. I also started an RfC on the talk page to discuss the controversial content with other editors.

After posting an RfC to resolve the content dispute, I voluntarily restricted myself to talk page discussions only and made no further changes to the article.

I took a short break from Wikipedia, came back, and found myself under a range of discretionary sanctions lasting for a year.

This is completely unfair and I am therefore appealing the sanctions per this guideline

I dispute the validity of these sanctions and I urge the Committee to lift them.

<font color="#380B61">A1candidate  00:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
Take note of the parallel discussion at ANI. It might well have proceeded to a topic ban if Adjwilley had not imposed lesser restrictions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2
Just saw this and wanted to note I had both unarchived and removed the resolved tag to that ANI. It is currently active. I did so because I felt that the above sanctions were not placed to resolve the situation being discussed at ANI nor did they resolve the the situation being discussed at ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
1RR, not gaming the rules, refraining from battleground behavior, refraining from WP:IDHT behavior, and keeping the focus on content rather than contributors all are good practice for everyone. This leaves us with the WP:0RR at Acupuncture. On that point User:Bishonen's observation here is persuasive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Adjwilley
As I mentioned here the sanctions were not in response to the most recent events at acupuncture described above by A1candidate. The timing was more due to me finally finding a few hours to sit down and go through the history of multiple editors on the page. A1candidate is obviously very stressed right now which I believe is affecting their judgement, and I would feel bad extending this to a topic ban just because of that. I believe they have a good knowledge of the sources and could still contribute at the acupuncture talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
A1candidate shows a worrying lack of self-awareness and self-criticism, and this request underscores that. The restriction was placed by an uninvolved admin (who, it should be noticed, had just been canvassed by A1candidate to protect the article at his preferred version) in a good faith attempt to allow A1candidate to continue contributing to an article where he clearly has strong feelings, but where his editing behaviour has been widely identified as highly problematic. An identical restriction has been placed on user:QuackGuru, an equally energetic partisan with the opposite POV.

Importantly, both the restricted editors are the current most active editors of the article itself, resulting in instability and see-sawing between opposing points of view, which is ridiculous in a mature article. The consensus seems to be that "jaw jaw is better than edit war edit war", to paraphrase a well known authority on conflict, and (importantly) this restriction still allows both parties to contribute on Talk, making specific proposals for article improvement. That seems to me to be an approach at least worth trying.

When A1candidate's recent request for arbitration was declined, a view was expressed that this might well end up at arbitration in the longer term. I believe that the restriction is a solid attempt to prevent exactly that drama. If this works, it will give us an additional proven tool to manage contentious topics.

The only obvious alternative to this restriction for this user at this time, would probably be a topic ban. I think the restriction represents a creative attempt to resolve the issue without recourse to such draconian measures, so I believe that we should at least try this and see how it goes. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: You may not be familiar with Minchin's Law: by definition, alternative medicine either has not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. The name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work, is "medicine". Wikipedia is and always has been unashamedly reality-based. And note that exactly the same sanction has been applied to another prolific and disruptive editor, who has a diametrically opposed POV - even though there is general agreement that his edits are in line with policy, where A1candidate's are very often not. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
With respect, I'd like to ask that the arbs be held accountable for the proposals they are making. In this case an indefinite topic ban, one of the severest judgements that can be handed down is being proposed without explanation. Such a judgement overrides the admin Adjwilley who had the situation in hand, and seems to be the response to A1 an editor who dared to ask that the sanctions against him be reevaluated. A simple decline and warning, as this is in the hands of a competent admin, seems fairer to A1 candidate, and respectful to the capabilities of the admin. The message to those in the community who are looking for a place to go if they feel something is unfair is, if you approach the arbs you risk draconian punishment without recourse or explanation. and can expect to skip the escalating-in-between sanctions as the last and worse is applied. Editors deserve explanation and fairness and they need a place to go where they can trust those in command. This is the second instance I've felt concern about an arbitration situation; I don't want to be here, but I am concerned that indef sanctions are being handed out like lollipops with about as much explanation. Disclaimer: I have very little experience with acupuncture in RL, and left the Acupuncture article after a few comments because the environment was poisonous.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Cla68
A1 editor, you gave it a good try to NPOV that article a little, but realize that you're up against an entrenched anti-alternative medicine bias in Wikipedia, one that extends to its administration, as you're finding out the hard way. These guys are experts into maneuvering you into a position of making it look like you're a fanatic with an agenda and they aren't. I suggest finding more productive things to do with your time than editing WP or else going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 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.

Acupuncture: Clerk notes

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



Acupuncture: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline lifting the sanction, as I don't think the requirements for overruling an admin's call have been met. To be honest, I'm tempted to upgrade the restriction to a full-on topic ban... Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Salvio. If I'd support doing anything, it would be imposing by motion a full indefinite topic ban covering the union of the Pseudoscience and Acupuncture DS authorizations.  Courcelles (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline "I don't like being under sanctions" really isn't a valid reason for lifting said sanctions. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline while supporting a motion for a full indefinite topic ban. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline I agree with salvio. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  05:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline overturning the sanctions, and like those above, I find myself questioning whether A1candidate should be participating in this topic area at all. But let's give the current sanctions a chance to work, it can always be made a full topic ban if they fail to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline' changing the sanctions. They're the only hope of avoiding a full topic ban.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per DGG. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope the appellant is not disheartened by our decision, but it is sadly apparent that this request is baseless. Decline. AGK  [•] 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)