Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 85

Clarification request: Collect and others (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MrX at 11:37, 28 August 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
 * Collect notified
 * Nomoskedasticity notified

Statement by MrX
Does this remedy: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others include an exception for reverting content that is asserted to violate WP:BLP?

Folks commenting at WP:AE have different opinions about whether Arbcom intended that "vandalism" includes alleged BLP policy violations, or whether a one revert restriction falls under the authority of WP:EW, thus excluding alleged BLP policy violations. See third heading "Collect" here


 * Relevant case finding: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others


 * Don't even go there. Collect was banned from interacting with me because of his bad deeds, not the other way around. Now kindly let Arbcom clarify the restriction. - MrX 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you kindly explain why I, the user who initiated the original Arbcom case, should be advised not to seek clarification about that case at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I didn't comment on the AE because I had nothing novel to add, but I have an interest in the outcome, because it's clear that Collect doesn't intend to comply with the remedies from the Arbcom case. To suggest that I can't pursue clarification because the subject of that request was banned from interacting with me strikes me as rather Kafkaesque, even by Wikipedia standards. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Note that I am on a Wikibreak (seeking to regain my patience), and had clearly announced such. Note also the endless and multiple complaints at AE etc. - including from two miraculous virgin IPs whose only posts ever were to complain about me. If this is done for amusement, I am not amused. I do suggest, moreover, that BLPs totally unrelated in any way whatsoever to US politics is a poor choice of remedy - I find those who push allegations of felonies in any page to be far more reprehensible than any of my many sins. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on allegations made about me from another unnamed editor. Any outside observer if free to use the Editor Interaction tool to note whether I have followed any editor, or whether another editor appears to follow me. The results are sure to astound anyone willing to actually look at "who comments on whom".

For jbh - I stated the June 15th date quite early on, and ask you make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)  I had asked multiple times to address the last minute evidence which had given by others in a coordinated manner (the "complainants" were so bold as to write to each other on user talk pages etc.). When last minut material which was not related to the immediate complaint was given, I wanted actual time to reply. As it is, I was quite preoccupied and unable to actually address the "charges" even though I asked to be allowed to do so. In most places, the "accused" is afforded every opportunity to address charges. Prevention of a "right of reply" is unusual, indeed. I

@Thry: I have made many thousands of edits on BLPs -  yet you appear to claim that I regularly violated the policy? I find your claim incomprehensible - noting that the immediate anteceding contretemps was whether am article was. or was not, SYNTH and violative of Wikipedia policy. I hate to say this, but it damn well looks like you made no actual effort to look at my work, but had "verdict first" as a m.o. A few of the articles I have edited are on my talk page. I stand by them. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - note I have made no statements about anyone I am interaction banned form, and object to the snarky implication that I would do so.

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
Collect is on a 1RR restriction in part because (as per Arbcomm findings of fact) his editing of BLPs was not in keeping with policy requirements. It is useful to have editors revert BLP violations, but we don't need someone who has a poor record in this respect making judgments about what constitutes a BLP violation; carving out an exception along these lines is a recipe for disruption. Guy's suggestion is the right way forward: one revert and a noticeboard post so that others can take care of any further problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley
The whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations". I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) at ArbE, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads. That seems pretty clear. J bh Talk  13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you want to bring this up again I will reply here although I do not think this is a proper venue. The edits you used at ArbE [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=677694050&oldid=677692898] to support your claim you 'brought up the date early on' were made on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=655192681 10:31, 6 April 2015] and [ 13:31, 6 April 2015 ]. The evidence phase for the the ArbCom case ended [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Evidence&diff=655288838&oldid=655266722 23:04, 6 April 2015]. Since the Evidence phase started on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others&oldid=653211058 23 March 2015] my math says you brought up the issue ~13 hours before the close of a 14 day process. So no apology. I do not know why this timing thing is such a sore point for you. When I brought it up you replied with "[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=677689084&oldid=677684436]" and then [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=677694050&oldid=677692898 asked for an IBAN] and then said I had [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=677699125&oldid=677697594 "called (you) an outright liar"]. While I have not, to the best of my recollection, called you 'an outright liar' I have on several occasions said your statements do not comport with objective reality and then shown, as I have here, with diffs how that is so. (Your post here is a good further example you say I should whereas what I said was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=677679486&oldid=677671456 something else entirely]) To the best of my understanding that is not harassment nor even uncivil. If you have further complaints about me you can A) bring them up with me on my talk page, or B) bring them up, with diffs, at ANI rather than further derail the ARCA discussion.  J bh  Talk  21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: These two sections of Collect's talk page do not give me warm fuzzy feelings that he is willing to abide by his prior sanctions: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect#the_.22finding_of_fact.22 UT:Collect:The Finding of Fact] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect#what_ACTUAL_BLP_violations_look_like UT:Collect:What ACTUAL BLP violations look like]. These both discuss material related to US politics cf Pamela Geller and discussion of PNAC. I am, as I guess others are, hesitant to open an AE request while this ARCA request is ongoing but I believe it to be a blatant violation of his topic ban that needs attention. J bh  Talk  15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Should Collect's continuing picking at the boundries of his topic ban be addressed to AE or can/should it be handled here? He is engaging in more 'boundry testing' with comments on Sylvester Turner, who is a serving member of the Texas House and a US politician by any measure, at BLPN [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=679138211] while trying to duck his topic ban -'(Asserting that these comments are not "political" for those following my edits and that this noticeboard is not a "political page")'-[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=679138211]. At this point is has become obvious that is not dealing with his ban in good faith. If this is not the proper place to bring these concerns please advise and I will open an AE request but I do not want to do so while a linked matter is in front of the Committee without a clear OK to do so.  J bh  Talk  21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
It is clear that Collect has misinterpreted the restriction. There are some who consider this to be wilful, others who are inclined to assume good faith, but there is little dissent from the view that he has violated the restriction, whether in good faith or not. I believe there is merit in a reaffirmation that there are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than obvious vandalism, and that this explicitly includes WP:BLP articles. My advice to Collect would be to post BLP violations to the relevant noticeboards rather than risk being accused of violating the restriction. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brustopher
Opening an ARCA request against an editor who is 1 way interaction banned from you, in relation to an AE request you are not involved in, is in incredibly poor taste. Surely this should be against some kind of rule? Brustopher (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The badness of previous actions (which tbh looking at the AE request are pretty bad) does not change the inappropriateness of this one. From what I can see you haven't even touched the British politics topic area with a 10 inch flagpole in the past. Suddenly Collect is involved and you're filing at ARCA. You're escalating a bad situation. When someone opens an ARCA request against a person they are 1 way banned with, and the request is completely unrelated to that ban, they are baiting ( hopefully inadvertently in this case) the editor into breaking that ban. Brustopher (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I'm very sympathetic to Collect with respect to the two previous AE filings made by an IP who was obviously concealing identity. However, this is a separate issue. ArbCom made an exception for obvious vandalism. BLP violation is a serious problem, but it was not, in this case, obvious vandalism – and ArbCom found problems with Collect using BLP claims inappropriately. I agree with Guy that posting at a notice board is the proper alternative to a second revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf: Just before you made the comment about the interaction ban, that ban was lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
That nature of the clarification discussion is completely unworkable. If it is a BLP violation, and he is reverting it, which admin would be so obtuse as to not see WP:IAR as reverting a BLP violation as being beneficial to the project (it is policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE WP:BLPREMOVE, afterall) ? Which admin would not Boomerang a complaint that User:Collect corrected a BLP violation? If it is not a BLP violation than it is not excused unless it's vandalism. Thus, Collect would have to be reverting non-BLP and non-vandalism edits in order to be justly sanctioned. We're not a bureaucracy and it's extremely poor form to take action against an editor that actually improved the encyclopedia through policy.

What will his block log say: "Collect removed BLP violations but it violated his 1RR restriction?" Seriously, is that the clarification ArbCom is stating?

Collect will have to be careful that they are BLP violations, but if they are, he should not be punished. He decides BLP violations at his own peril. But why would ArbCom seek 1RR punishment for removing BLP violations except in vainglory for a finding? The spirit of the rules are not to allow BLP violations or vandalism and editors that correct such things are improving the encyclopedia which is why we are here. Anyone who says, "Yes, they are BLP violations but Collect can't fix them." misses the entire point of WP:BLP. The only legitimate finding for a sanction would be "No, they were not BLP violations or vandalism." Anyone that brings a complaint that the "wrong person" fixed a BLP violation should receive their justly earned boomerang for wasting time.

We are not here to seek retribution and there is a site wide policy that editors shall remove BLP violations. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note from Harry Mitchell
I have blocked Collect for a fortnight for a topic-ban violation. If Collect's participation in arbitration venues is necessary, I'm happy for the block to be lifted or modified as necessary by a clerk or arbitrator. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
When did "All editors are equal, but some editors are less equal than others" become the sixth pillar of Wikipedia?

The one-revert limit is governed by the community-established policy on edit warring. The relevant section. WP:1RR, refers specifically to the standard remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. It states, quite plainly, that the difference between 1RR and 3RR is simply the number of reverts. It quite clearly does not state that the standard 3RR exceptions are not available under 1RR. Instead, the policy sets out seven exceptions to 1RR/3RR limits: self-reverts, reverts in one's own userspace, reverting edits by banned users and their socks, reverting obvious vandalism, reverting clear copyvios and NFCC violations, removal of illegal content, and reverting of BLP violations. Unless ArbCom imposes a specific, more restrictive limit in its decision, the policy governs. And the policy says that Collect's contested edits were allowed as 1RR exceptions.

Now some editors here, including several arbitrators, insist that because ArbCom mentioned only the vandalism exception in its decision, it made the other six exceptions unavailable to Collect. To put things politely -- no, let's not, that argument is a complete crock. Obviously none of the editors involved, particularly the arbitrators, have bothered to actually check the policy. , do you really believe that the Committee meant to deny Collect the option to self-revert if he decides that his initial revert on a page was incorrect? , did you vote to deny Collect standard revert privileges in his own userspace? , are you saying that Collect shouldn't remove an obvious copyvio/NFCC vio more than once? ,, are you ready to say, User:Collect, you removed those sexually explicit pictures of the underage Traci Lords twice from our wonderful article on Gang bang pornography, but we said you could only remove it once, so you get a nice long block?

And, not just so you don't feel left out,, , note that Collect just got a two-week block for discussing BLP violations at BLPN, supposedly as a contravention of his topic ban, even though under BANEX BLP violations would be exempt from that topic ban.

The problem that underlies all this nonsense is pretty clear. A few weeks, curing the Lightbreather debacle, after a majority of ArbCom had signed onto a finding instructing female editors not to fight back against sexual harassment, one arb commnented that the finding should be changed because it could be misunderstood. The real problem is is that ArbCom too often doesn't understand what it says. The real problem is that Arbcom too often doesn't say what it actually means. . . if it even knows what it meant. And it's very, very clear that, in cases like this, ArbCom has no principled approach to solving the problems it creates.

As I write, the oldest unclosed entry on this board, on Christianity and Sexuality, deals with an enforcement request I filed against Roscelese. There was no real dispute that Roscelese had violated the express terms of the restrictions ArbCom placed on her. Taking exactly the opposite posture that they're taking with Collect, admins and arbs became virtual contortionists, bending themselves over backwards and in all directions to insist that reciting specific exemptions didn't exclude others.

Of course, Collect, like The Big Bad Wolfowitz, is one of those animals here who's less equal than others. Whatever can be construed against him, will be. Hounding and harassment are ignored. Ultimately, holding heretical attitudes about Wikipedia is a more influential factor than one's actual compliance with purportedly important policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect and others: Clerk notes

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



Collect and others: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Collect's track record shows that their judgement of what is and is not a BLP violation correlates poorly with the general consensus, so in my view BLP violations (which are not also obvious vandalism) are not an exception to his restriction. Guy's suggestion is a good one, and it will have the useful side effect of providing easy evidence of improvement in your judgement that you can present at a future appeal of the restriction. Regarding MrX's opening this request, yes it would have been better to let someone else bring it here - the AE thread is not short of people familiar with ARCA - but I don't think anything more than a "please do not do so again" is required. you may comment here about specific allegations or comments MrX makes, but you may not comment about MrX nor about the merits or otherwise of your interaction ban with them (if you wish to appeal that, please do so in a separate request for clarity). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is correct. There are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than unambiguous vandalism, and this includes WP:BLP articles. If Collect becomes aware of something they think should be reverted on BLP grounds, but they cannot do so because of 1RR, they may take it to the relevant noticeboard for community input. This is subject to the concurrent restriction on edits relating to US politics, which applies in every namespace. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought we were pretty clear on this. We made no suggestion that Collect could treat what he saw as BLP violations as vandalism, and 11 of us supported the Finding of Fact that made it clear that his BLP editing was sub-optimal and incorporated a non-NPOV approach. Collect's response doesn't fill me with confidence nor does it approach the issue, but seems to challenge the decision. I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't blocked at AE. We can give him this one pass but only this once, and I would expect that any vandalism revert done by him in the future will be for indubitable vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug here -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * lex specialis derogat legi generali. Our specific wording on Collect's 1RR overrides the more generous community definition of 1RR. However, this restriction is restricted to the mainspace (..one revert per article.. not ...one revert per page...). So to answer your specific question to me, no, he is free to revert away on his userpage. I might be willing to extend exemptions for self reverts and copyvios. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I.  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I too: on this occasion Collect plainly breached the remedy. Future enforcement should not excuse reverts citing BLP, and it would in fact seem appropriate to enforce the current breach as well (given the long track record). AGK  [•] 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of what was addressed in the case was Collect's use of BLP in cases where it was unclear at best if a BLP violation was indeed at issue. The only exemption in this case would be blatant and obvious vandalism. Collect is, of course, still welcome to bring suspected BLP violations to BLPN or another appropriate venue, they do not have to go unaddressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with above arbitrators. I'm increasingly concerned that blp isn't being used to actually enforce BLP, but is at times being used as a trump card or exemption to restrictions without much respect to the policy itself. NativeForeigner Talk 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you; in fact, I'm getting increasingly troubled by the fact BLP is more and more being invoked on flimsy (and sometimes outright absurd) grounds by editors trying to advance their own POV or cause (this is a general observation). However, I'm uncomfortable with taking a very strict approach in this case, when in others we've allowed editors to use BLP as a way to avoid sanctions after violating their restriction. Yes, we have WP:NOJUSTICE and all that, but I'm still uncomfortable. Then again, I opposed the imposition of this sanction from the beginning (and still think it was a bad idea), so make of that what you want. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This was a clear breach of the remedy, but hopefully the clarifications that have resulted from this will ensure that Collect doesn't make the same mistake in the future. I don't support any sanctions beyond a firm slap on the wrist for this specific infraction. Yunshui 雲 水 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I normally support exemptions for BLP, I don't think we intended to include one here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are in line with NativeForeigner and Salvio's subcomment. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Tryptofish at 15:37, 8 September 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
 * I've posted a general notification at the discussion at ANI: . --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
I request that ArbCom make it explicit that the Discretionary Sanctions enacted in the Pseudoscience case apply to content (and accompanying conduct) concerning the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is essentially equivalent to the subset of GMO-related content that is also governed by WP:MEDRS. For typical content within this scope, please see the page on the Séralini affair and the page section on Genetically modified food controversies.

The disputes in this content area go back at least to May 2013 (see Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1). It has recently erupted at a series of incompletely-resolved complaints at WP:EWN: 1, 2, and 3, and a drama-filled discussion at WP:ANI. My request here grows out of a section of that ANI discussion: WP:ANI.

I want to point out that it would not be unreasonable for the Committee to decide, instead, that a full case request is needed. The GMO controversy also includes scientific content about ecology and the environment that is not pseudoscience, as well as content about economic, business, political, and governmental issues that are outside of the scope. However, the most contentious disputes do center on fringe claims that GMOs are harmful to human health. I suggest that ArbCom should, for now, take a minimal or incremental approach, and see whether or not the community can make discretionary sanctions work. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Floq just pointed out, a full case request was made almost simultaneously with my request. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
If you all think that this can be shoehorned into the existing pseudoscience sanctions, that would help resolve the issue. If you can't, maybe we might need a full case, which, honestly, given what is pointed out above, might not be that bad, considering there are, evidently, other areas of concern regarding this topic as well. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
,, Clerks and Arbs: the sooner some combination of you decide what to do about a case request and a clarification request filed at almost the same time about the same issue, the less complicated things are going to get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
I just went through the process of filing a full case request, without being aware of the existence of this clarification request. I will leave it to the arbitrators to decide which, if either, is the proper forum for handling the problem. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret
I dont think that just slapping on DS is the best way to go. A full Arbcom case will likely be more effective in breaking the back of this dispute. I also question adding the topic to pseudoscience as there is hard science involved and may allow for determinations and that in pseudoscience are acceptable because of the lack of hard science. It also may stigmatize the positions of some of the editors in this area. AlbinoFerret 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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


 * (Cross-posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case.) For the purposes of maintaining order, I recommend that the arbitrators have us clerks merge the two requests to WP:ARC, so the Committee can open a full case if needed, or resolve the matter by motion or clarification if they so choose. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'll be bold and unilaterally request that the editors posting here move their comments to Arbitration/Requests/Case and, once they have done so, that the clerks simply delete this request. The other page tends to be more flexible, in that we can decide to open a case or pass a motion amending the pseudoscience case/authorising DS for this topic area. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Previously known as User:Ferrylodge) (This began as a clarification request but an amendment request was added.)


 * 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 Anythingyouwant
According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word. I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my May 2014 request for amendment, and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.

In case you want to know, my firm position on the matter is that I have no intention of faking contrition. Your committee's allegation that I "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" remains utter bullshit; I did nothing wrong with regard to Black's Law Dictionary aside from quoting an earlier edition that I did not realize had later been revised, and I made no objection whatsoever to the editor who installed the revised definition (other than earning that editor's explicit thanks by correcting an error of his). Let me be 100% clear about how very far I am from contrition: if this proceeding had involved real names (and thus real reputations), I would have sued every last one of ArbCom's members for slander (that's just a historical fact rather than a threat of any kind). ArbCom ignored my objections against violations of your own length-limitations on evidence, and ignored my stated intent to not violate those rules myself. I stand by virtually everything I said on November 22, 2011 shortly after you voted to topic ban me. If you allow my lack of contrition to affect your answer to the present request for clarification, that will not be surprising, but it would be unfair. The only mistake I regret is not being sufficiently careful about editing an article talk page in 2011 three weeks after I edited a policy page; I should have been more cautious about any appearance of impropriety, even though I was completely up front and honest at the policy page, and even though the change to the policy page was innocuous as of the time I mentioned it at the abortion talk page (an admin had edited my policy change during the three-week interim). I only edited the policy page based on prior advice from an ArbCom member that, "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals." I had no idea that the policy change would be relevant weeks later at the article, nor did I understand the policy change as advancing my position; it was just meant to promote procedural fairness. I should have asked an admin for explicit guidance about it at the time. For years prior to the 2011 ban, your committee subjected me to endless harassment at Arbitration Enforcement, and all of those endless frivolous complaints at AE were denied, see for example these diffs: ,,,, etc. When these messed-up accusations came during the ArbCom case, I was worn out from endless bogus complaints, and perhaps I should have responded fully to the bogus accusations that exceeded the evidence limits, in view of your committee's apparent disregard of those limits. I remain deeply disappointed by this whole matter. I sincerely try my best to follow the rules here, and will follow any decision you make now regardless of whether I agree with it. That's all I have to say at this time relative to the present clarification request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.
 * @User:Bishonen, thanks for referring me to WP:TBAN which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed."  It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to WP:TBAN.  If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it.  Thanks.  I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here.  According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf, since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like for four years just to be careful.  But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion.  I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit fetus and pre-natal development and feticide if my edits are not about abortion?  That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about Political positions of Jeb Bush.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Thryduulf, you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush and feticide and pre-natal development except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh.  Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:DGG, you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry!  I now understand from WP:TBAN that I shouldn't have made the edit at all.  Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know.  I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again.  Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like feticide, but barred from making abortion edits to articles like Political positions of Jeb Bush.  Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your [expletive deleted] topic ban.  Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of Carly Fiorina.  YMMV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Bishonen, it seems to me that Pre-natal development and Political positions of Jeb Bush are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter.  So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure".  Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and WP:TBAN would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay.  Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard?  I think so.  The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Seraphimblade, User:Doug Weller, User:Bishonen, per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too.  As always, you folks meet my expectations.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Guy Macon, you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban.  I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it.  Anything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Guy Macon I see that you have revised your question: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" I think you know perfectly well that the answer to that revised question is also no.  The reason why I opened this discussion is because I knew at that time that the matter might raise an issue.  I hope you ask better questions of other people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Everyone, I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday. Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them.  I don't see what more I can do about it.  Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part.  There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under.  It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar.  So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:DGG I didn't ask for any guidance here about whether it's generally wise or unwise to include long quotations or short quotations or no quotations within footnotes, and I intend to keep on editing articles outside the scope of this topic-ban just as I have always done because I do not consider anything in this proceeding to be a warning not to do so.  My own opinion is that extended quotations from reliable sources (within footnotes) are often fine at Wikipedia when they neutrally provide useful information to readers about a subject.  The mere fact that a Wikipedia article might discuss one subject using an extended quotation and another subject without using an extended quotation is no ground for objection, IMHO.  I chose to add a long quotation from Bush that supplemented other material in the section; the site I used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, but it's very often convenient to provide quotations and other information in a Wikipedia article even though readers could instead access it via other websites.  I write such footnotes all the time, and I just want to make it clear that I do not understand anything in this proceeding as a warning to stop.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:GorillaWarfare, I said above: "According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it." That's why it was unclear to me what the rules were regarding the Political positions of Jeb Bush.  If that's an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can't edit it in any way.  If it's not an "abortion-related page" then the plain language of the topic ban indicates that I can edit it like any other article.  So now I've come here and been told that Political positions of Jeb Bush is an abortion-related page if I make abortion-related edits to it, but is not an abortion-related page if my edits are not abortion-related, and furthermore articles like fetus are abortion-related even if my edits have nothing to do with abortion.  None of this was apparent from the plain language of the topic ban, and so now it is apparent which is why I came here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:GorillaWarfare, I have not requested an amendment here, as indicated by the heading I chose. Frankly, I do not anticipate that an amendment will ever be granted (given the information that has been hidden above), and so I don't plan on ever asking for one.  Yes, I agree that my ban (as clarified here) extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion.  And a question for you: do you want the topic ban to extend to pages that say or imply nothing about abortion, like pre-natal development?  Another arb said below that it does extend to all pregnancy-related articles, which seems kind of weird given that the topic-ban could have easily said so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Given the stuff that's hidden above, will it be futile for me to ever request that this topic-ban be lifted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am only human, and I cannot promise to never make innocent mistakes such as when I cited a dictionary definition that I did not realize had been revised, and such as when I obeyed ArbCom limits on evidence even though the accusations were 100% beyond those limits.  I am never going to admit to ArbCom's accusation that I "manipulated" a reliable source.  I already explained that I would be more careful about editing Wikipedia policy, but will never agree with the ArbCom accusation that I had some nefarious intent, and have explained why I did what I did.  These were the only two items that ArbCom cited against me in 2011 as far as I recall.  I cannot even recall the details from 2007 anymore, but I note that every single one of the AE actions against me from 2007 to 2011 (that I linked in the hidden section above) resulted in no action against me, and very probably should have resulted in action against those who made unpersuasive accusations.  So please remove the topic ban, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you are considering my request (bolded just above) to remove the topic ban, or not. I don't know whether a reply to that request will be forthcoming, or not.  Please let me know.  Not only am I willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction, but actually the many exonerations at Arbitration Enforcement from 2007 to 2011 (linked in the hidden section above) prove that willingness.  So does the lack of blocks since 2009.  Although I am willing to avoid "the behaviors that led to the restriction", I cannot guarantee that I will be successful in avoiding garden-variety unintentional errors that are made all the time by Wikipedia editors.  I just made an error like that today. I apologize for making them, including using the outdated definition from a dictionary that was cited against me by ArbCom in 2011.  But if you're waiting for me to confess to an intentional manipulaton of sources, then that wait will have no end; the error was completely unintentional, other editors make errors like it all the time (as did the editor who revised this particular outdated definition that I inserted), those errors get corrected through a collaborative editorial process, and then everyone hopefully moves on.  In the future, if a particular article prompts me to edit a policy, then I won't later cite the revised part of the policy at the same article even if years and decades have gone by, without first consulting with an admin to make sure that it's okay (this was the other specific charge that ArbCom made against me in 2011).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen
I believe the WP:TBAN policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article Jeb Bush, but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
 * @Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as fetus and pre-natal development and feticide and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all pages… broadly related to the topic". Fetus,  Pre-natal development and Feticide are "pages broadly related to the topic", as you know, since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
 * @L235, it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
 * @Anythingyouwant again: I'm done trying to explain to you, because it seems you prefer not to understand. You're starting to remind me too strongly of Ferrylodge's lawyerly demeanour in this RFC a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'll not address you again. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon
Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In this edit, you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled "Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion" and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:


 * "I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban? Competence is required.

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that this edit was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the competence required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
IMO AGK hits the right note here. Yes, a breach of the ban. But the guy did the right thing, owned up and asked what he should do next. What do you want him to do, self-report to AE? Everyone should take a deep breath, step back from the brink and move along. I'd advise that you don't do it again. GoldenRing (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Abortion: Clerk notes

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


 * I was directed to leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at WP:BANEX is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at WP:AE about this matter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being, for example a paid or print-only site.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be  being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits.  DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So far as articles like fetus, feticide, etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On Political positions of Jeb Bush, on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit any page in any manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by WP:BANEX. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This was plainly a breach, though I respect the user for bringing it to our attention themselves on this occasion. For that reason I would be minded to excuse this one violation alone, on the understanding that our guidance here was perfectly clear and that it won't happen again. AGK  [•] 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much exactly per AGK. Hopefully the scope of the TBAN is now more clear. Yunshui 雲 水 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is quite clearly a breach; I am somewhat confused as to why this was not clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand how you may have misunderstood that previously, but now that Bishonen has provided the "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." quote from WP:TBAN, do you agree that your ban extends also to pages and sections of pages that relate to abortion? If so, it seems that no explicit amendment would be necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if "amendment" was unclear—I meant that if you agree with what seems to be the general interpretation, amending your original topic ban to explicitly include this doesn't seem necessary. Regarding pre-natal development, there are edits you could make to that page that don't involve abortion (for example, the content of the fertilization section as it currently stands is fairly removed from the abortion topic). However, other edits to that page could very easily fall within the topic area. Generally your best bet is to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted to relate to abortion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think just about any restriction can be successfully appealed if the appellant is willing to avoid the behaviors that led to the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to try the standard "parole" here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The course of this discussion has made it very clear to me that the restriction should stand, and be interpreted to mean any matter that relates to abortion or that might be relevant in any way to the debates on the subject. It very certainly includes information about a politician's views on the subject. I would not be willing to try any form of parole; the only change we might want to make is to see if we can make the wording stronger and more inclusive, but I think that's not necessary, because our discussion here has already said it.   DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nyttend at 22:38, 4 August 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


 * Kww

Statement by Nyttend
As noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place.  Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dragons flight
Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments:. My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this.  Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at WT:EF to give you their opinions of your previous filters.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim
Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath (visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine), the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at Edit filter, second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that after lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890 I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
I'm opining ya'll should probably vote to close this, 'cause it looks like you're done. NE Ent 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

 * (...sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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


 * I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy ("Kww's edit filter permissions revoked"). L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. Yunshui 雲 水 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good WP:RFP like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that we revoked the permissions, but did not ban him from re-applying by the usual means for them, I think the remedy is probably clear enough as it is. Happy to support a remedy amendment to make the existing text even clearer, if somebody wishes to move one, but otherwise I am satisfied that this is all in order. AGK  [•] 23:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've kept an eye on this but for absolute clarity I am of the same mind as AGK. NativeForeigner Talk 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with AGK. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Asgardian (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Asgardian (talk) at 06:56, 15 September 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Asgardian

 * I was banned for edit warring and then ban evasion, but was eventually restored after an off-site discussion by the Committee . A condition of the re-instatement was that I do not edit any Marvel Comics articles. I feel this restriction is no longer necessary and would respectfully ask that it be lifted. I have long since learned that edit-warring is pointless and that discussion is always best. I even have a few suggestions about editing comic articles and how best to improve Wikipedia overall. For your consideration.

Asgardian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Reviewing Asgardian contributions I note the following: Conclusion: recommend committee remove ban as requested. NE Ent 00:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of contributions, but the ones that were were mostly drama free
 * Demonstrated ability to work reasonably well with others on Talk:Creature_of_Havoc; would like to see further improvement (e.g. In the first instance, how can we be expected to take you seriously when you can't be bothered even signing your posts? is unnecessary snark, but not atypical for the a talk page discussion (unfortunately). But I admittedly have a high standard for "ideal" editor behavior.

Statement by John Carter

 * Knowing virtually nothing about the dispute itself, I would support lifting the sanction. Review of behavior above doesn't seem to me to be too bad, and the editor has admitted his tactics were less than effective, and that he has learned from previous experience. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Asgardian: Clerk notes

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

Asgardian: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm open to considering suspending this topic ban in the same manner we've done a couple of times recently. I would like to hear other editors' views though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A topic ban suspension for six months would be fine by me; seems like a sensible solution. Yunshui 雲 水 10:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Asgardian
The topic ban from Marvel Comics portion of Asgardian's unblock condition is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
 * Enacted: Jim Car ter  13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) We might as well vote instead of talking about voting. The standard suspension is for one year so I am just rolling with it. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yunshui 雲 水  06:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Amendment request: India-Pakistan (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Soham321 at 19:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Link


 * 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 Bishonen
 * diff of notification EdJohnston
 * diff of notification Dennis Brown
 * diff of notification JzG
 * diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise
 * diff of notification Gamaliel
 * diff of notification Rich Farmbrough


 * Information about amendment request
 * Link
 * Waiver on the Voltaire page, and other waivers as described in my appeal

Statement by Soham321
I have argued my case at WP:AE: Link. The banning Admin (Bishonen) and other Admins have given their views on this venue. 's views on my case (diff) in the WP:AE discussion encourage me to ask for a second opinion on the decision taken by WP:AE. I have nothing to add to what i have stated at WP:AE except to reiterate that i am seeking the exemption under WP:NORULES, and that i now seek exemption from the WP pages related to not just Voltaire but all European philosophers. These include pages of European philosophers like Immanuel Kant, René Descartes, and George Berkeley. The reason is that i would like to add a section on the WP pages of the European philosophers giving parallels with respect to their thoughts and opinions with their Indian counterparts. For instance, it has been argued that Kant's philosophy has similarities with the philosophy of Adi Shankara (see for example Will Durant's "Our Oriental Heritage"); and Descartes's framing of the Dream argument has a clear parallel with the treatment of this subject by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (see "Kumarila's refutation of the Dream Argument" by John Taber). This would add an extra dimension to these WP articles in my opinion. Here is an example of the source material i might use in editing the pages of the European philosophers: Link.

One might argue--why not wait the ban out (4 months more) and then put the material in. My response is that i am moving to another city in the next few months and i may not have the source material (specifically the books) with me anytime soon after my move.

Reply to : as a sign of good faith i am offering to not go beyond 1RR in any edit where i do the comparative analysis that i mentioned in my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to since he gave a cogent reason why he is declining my appeal: First, i accept that i did lose my cool with Ms Sarah Welch, but my defense is that i was provoked. Mohanbhan has given my defense more adequately than i could in my previous appeal: diff. Even then i accept i was in error for losing my cool. The ban is not necessary in my opinion because i have not demonstrated any evidence of "Battleground editing" or "Battleground behavior" after my first appeal was declined to the best of my knowledge and recollection. I have never gone to 3RR to the best of my knowledge and recollection on any page after the topic ban was imposed on me. I have had many differences with Sitush in the past, and had i really been guilty of exhibiting battleground behavior i would have happily joined in when some other editors were criticizing Sitush on my talk page, but i did not do so. Please see the posts of Rabt man and Mohanbhan here: Link; and the post of Twobells here: Link. I may have *exchanged* some personal comments with Sitush earlier, but i have not done so after my earlier appeal with one exception. That is this comment: diff. I made my comment in the belief that Sitush was bullying a new editor. I have discussed this issue, and a related issue of IP editor(s) posting on my talk page, at ANI and i accepted the Admin Swarm's view/comment/advice since it sounded reasonable to me and requested that the thread be closed. This was Swarm's analysis of the issue: diff. The last time i have done joint editing on any article with Sitush was on the talk page of Eckankar. One may examine this page to see that the joint editing was being done in a collegial way, and not a battleground way. Soham321 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
These permanent links to Soham321's previous requests may be useful: Bishonen &#124; talk 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Dennis Brown
As I concluded there, the sanction appeared to be reasonable when looking at the totality of the editor's edits. My opinion hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
In my opinion, Soham's rationale for amending this sanction lacks any substance. Soham's reason for allowing edits in this area appears to boil down to not much beyond the fact that xe really really wants to. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
@ Floq.

There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

@ Soham

I think it's worth reading what I wrote a little carefully. My objections were not endorsements of you. or your editing of the Voltaire talk page. Rather I respect the opinions of those who said that giving you this latitude was likely to cause problems. Pragmatically denying you the ability to make these edits may well be in your best interests (in terms of further conflict and sanction), as others hold - though the heightened scrutiny may mean that problems will be headed off before it comes to that.

My objection was I suppose to some extent a procedural or conceptual one, in that the area you wished to discuss on Voltaire seemed (to my not particular well informed ear) sufficiently divorced form the subject that you were sanctioned on for a good faith request for an exemption to be granted.

This argument does not support your broader request to compare European philosophers to Indian philosophers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Floq
If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Soham that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down hard, so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Soham321, in your reply to Yunshui you offer not to exceed 1RR. Unfortunately, past history suggests even that will not avoid timesink issues. Bishonen is pretty conservative (imo) when issuing sanctions and there is little doubt in my mind that such issues will have played a part in her decision. She may, of course, disagree but the very fact that you have appealed again immediately after the AE appeal was closed rather supports the point even if not my assumption regarding Bish's thought processes. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 22 September 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 amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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



India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline There's no substance here; it boils down to, "I want to make edits that I'm not currently allowed to make." No indication that the original reasons for the topic ban have been considered and addressed, no suggestion that previous behaviour will be avoided - just a complaint that the TBAN is inconvenient. This is not a reason to amend or rescind it. Yunshui 雲 水 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline, no reason has been provided as to why the ban either shouldn't have been applied or is no longer necessary. "I really want to do it now" is not a valid reason to overturn a topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline and quite frankly, I don't think this sanction should expire. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I see no reason to overturn the consensus at AE. It is also worth noting that exhausting the community's patience can lead to blocks that are not often overturned. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline If anything, this seems to show that the sanction is required. Doug Weller (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: GamerGate (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate at 22:16, 17 September 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 The Devil's Advocate
I was blocked for two weeks by Future Perfect at Sunrise as a result of this edit-warring report. The cited reason in my block log was "breach of topic-ban at WP:AE, disruptive wikilawyering over blatant abuse of BLP" because I removed an unsourced claim about a living person. As can be seen from the noticeboard discussion, the material I removed claimed an individual was an expert in a certain area, despite no sources or evidence backing up the claim that this person was an expert in that area. One user cited an article claiming the individual was an expert in other matters, but not the specific matter where expertise was being claimed.

There appears to be no dispute from the admins that the claim itself was unsourced nor any dispute that it was a contentious claim. According to WP:3RRNO and WP:BANEX that would seem to make my removal a valid claim of exemption on its own. What the admins who commented seem to be arguing is that because claiming someone is an expert in not egregious or libelous I can't claim an exemption. However, my expressly stated reason for invoking the exemption was not simply the claim of expertise, but why the claim was made. The user who made the claim was trying to use it to back up an accusation this claimed expert made against another person. It was a very serious accusation, but it was mentioned in a reliable source so it was not something I could validly remove. However, the unsourced claim about the person making the accusation was being used to present this as some sort of expert evaluation when it was not presented as such in that source or any other source.

What I am seeking clarification on is whether I am correct that claiming someone is an expert on a specific subject without backing from sources, especially when said claim is being used to back a serious accusation against another person, was the kind of BLP violation where I can validly invoke an exemption. If so I would like some note either in my block log, in the sanction log, or both, that this was a wrongful block. Admittedly, I would have preferred to handle this privately through my block appeal given some aspects of why this is a serious BLP issue cannot be discussed publicly, but as my block's expiration before the appeal could proceed has rendered that moot I am seeking this as a form of relief. I think at the very least the Committee should be able to clarify whether my claim of an exemption was valid and therefore the block invalid.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seraphim, both 3RRNO and BANEX only say it needs to be an obvious BLP violation, which is any unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material, and the two admins who actually commented on it seemingly agreed the material was both contentious and unsourced in this case. Their disagreement appears to be based on either a misunderstanding of how BLP exemptions work, a misunderstanding of why I was reverting it, or both. My revert of the first editor was because the editor cited a source that did not back the specific claim made and I noted as much when reverting the editor. Given that the second editor is a new editor who appears to have a singular focus on the topic area (as was the last editor to revert me), I did not regard the editor's objection the same way I would regard an uninvolved third party's or even that of an involved editor with a diverse and well-established editing history. Once it was reported by an established editor and an admin objected, I ceased reverting and tried to explain in more detail to that admin. Eventually, I was able to convince the editor who was the second to revert me that my removal was valid. At the time I was blocked no one was pushing for it, not even the admin who objected.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hullabaloo, the reality is conduct noticeboards are not places for discussing content and it is not clear how the claims being made were relevant to the conduct issues raised. It is also the case that ArbCom has taken a more restrictive view on BLP and that is evidenced in their endorsement of topic bans over more minor past BLP violations on conduct noticeboard pages that are relevant to a content discussion in the GamerGate case. One of Future Perfect's own actions on a much more indirect alleged BLP violation on the talk page itself was endorsed in a finding of fact in the original case. Given that ArbCom believed these actions were severe enough to warrant rather harsh sanctions on the basis of BLP, there is no reason to believe the claims I removed are not to be considered BLP violations. I would suggest the common element in my case and those cases is concern about libel. To suggest an expert on a subject has evaluated someone's conduct and determined it qualified as a rather severe form of misconduct is potentially libelous if there is no indication that person is an expert on the subject and, in this case, such a claim has harmful implications for ongoing legal proceedings where the accused's constitutional rights may be at stake.

Guerillero, clearly the issue I am raising is the allowance all of those restrictions make for addressing obvious BLP violations. Other editors sanctioned on this issue have been allowed considerable leeway by AE admins as it concerns BLP exemptions, more leeway than I am asking for as no one here seems to dispute that the claims were unsourced and contentious, it was not an issue that had already been resolved, and I am not attempting to sanction anyone. I have similarly used the exemption on several occasions as it relates to GamerGate and connected issues, including instances where I was talking to admins or admins and others plainly supported my actions. My restrictions allow me to do such things to address BLP issues and that is what I believe is the case here as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, all of my restrictions very explicitly state they are subject to the usual exceptions and cite WP:3RRNO, which means BLP violations are a valid exemption. WP:BANEX is not even remotely meant to limit the number of times BLP violations can be reverted.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Mark Bernstein has made the point of mentioning many of the specifics I have avoided mentioning, let me point out the problem more explicitly. Nowhere in the Guardian article is Anita Sarkeesian claimed to be an expert and certainly not in the area of domestic violence, which is what Bernstein was asserting at AE with the clear intent that her inflammatory accusation against another living person be taken more seriously. Anyone who read his comment in full would discern that unduly legitimizing that accusation from an involved party as an expert opinion was the intended effect. Even if some sources suggest she is an expert in feminism or harassment that does not make her an expert in domestic violence and she was definitely not sought out as an expert on that subject or any other, but rather was sought out as a prominent figure in the GamerGate controversy. To assert that she is an expert in the area of domestic violence without any basis as a way to make her inflammatory attack seem like an expert evaluation is so egregious that I find it baffling how anyone can not immediately see the problem with it from a BLP perspective.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf and Yunshui, I was able to explain the BLP violation in one edit summary and despite all the administrative wikilawyering over BANEX, the standard is obviousness and it is obvious that this was an unsourced and contentious claim about a living person and thus an obvious BLP violation.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You were plainly claiming Anita Sarkeesian is an expert on domestic violence to present her domestic violence accusation against another living person as an expert opinion. Saying there is no basis in any sourcing to claim her as an expert on domestic violence is not saying she is not an expert. Whatever I may think of it, she is stated in many sources to be an expert on gender representation in popular culture, but that is fundamentally different from being an expert on domestic violence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian has been regularly interviewed as a victim of harassment or online abuse, not as an expert on it, and the Guardian interview is a continuation of such interviews. Even if she were considered an expert on harassment, she has certainly never been regarded in any source as an expert on domestic violence. This "unimpeachable" source that interviewed her as a victim of harassment presented a serious unsubstantiated allegation against the same person as fact in the same paragraph where Sarkeesian's accusation is included. It is an outlet that has made demonstrably false claims against that person as well.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no personal conflict with Bernstein. Only reason I responded to him is to address his revisionism regarding what he claimed and hopefully better illustrate with my response why I felt the claims were an obvious and egregious breach of BLP.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Far as I know the sole "BLP violation" had nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian and was about how I imperfectly raised a BLP issue. Only reason I mentioned Sarkeesian by name here is because Bernstein did it to repeat everything I was trying not to say. All I have said is that there is no indication she is an expert on domestic violence, which is hardly badmouthing her.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cuchullain
This is pretty clear cut on the face of it. TDA is banned from the drama boards and GamerGate, and he came in "redacting" another editor's comments. Then he proceeded to edit war over his redactions and make the rather outlandish claim that this was a BLP issue. Here is his first edit containing the alleged problematic material. This was a good block on Future's part, and given the fact that TDA is still trying to squeeze drama out of it it's probably time to revisit the question of a site ban.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be reiterated that BLP violations and other disruption related to Anita Sarkeesian was one of the major factors in the Committee banning TDA from GamerGate, revert warring, and noticeboards. He is now using this noticeboard discussion, which most have recognized as being opened on weak premises, as a pretext to badmouth Sarkeesian some more on Wikipedia. This is a camel's nose situation if I ever saw one. This discussion ought to be closed as soon as possible, and the community should turn its energy toward determining whether the positives of allowing this editor to remain on Wikipedia outweigh the serious disruption that seems to accompany him everywhere he inserts himself.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley
I saw this discussion when it originally happened and thought a fair point was being made. I did not comment there because... well... Gamergate. I hope it is a bit safer here. To be clear I am addressing only the concept of BLP violations occurring due to an indirect unsourced claim and I intend no comment on any other issue. There is, to use an analogous example, a huge difference in the way these two statements will be read and the potential damage to John Smith's reputation: While both may damage Smith's reputation, one is just someone spouting off the other is from an expert. The claim of expertise leans both weight and authority to the harassment claim because a reader will assume a statement by an expert has more weight and is likely to be true. Most people assume an expert knows what they are talking abut. By removing the un-sourced claim Jane Doe is an expert and thereby the extra weight of authority given to her words, the potential extra damage to John Smith's reputation is mitigated. Just as BLP intends. I do think that the concern expressed is a valid BLP issue in regards to Smith even though the un-sourced material related to Doe. This is just the kind of thing BLP is intended to protect against and I think if it had happened on a non-Gamergate article more people would have chimed in to discuss the issue rather than being terrified to dip a toe into that toxic hellpool. J bh Talk  20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jane Doe, an expert on sexual harassment, says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith
 * Jane Doe says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith.

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
And, once again, we begin to see ArbCom twisting itself into knots to evade the terms of community-established policy that it has not authority to alter or grant exceptions to. WP:BLP covers all types of claims, whether "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". WP:BANEX is quite clear and straightforward -- it refers simply to "obvious" violations, not (as would have it, "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations" involving grossly negative material. Jbhunley is pretty much on target, and I'm baffled by the fact that no one involved in the underlying dispute, not even TDA, seems to have noticed that saying "Notable Person A has accused Living Person B of domestic violence", without referencing, is ordinarily a textbook BLP violation, whether or not Notable Person A is an expert in a relevant field.

More important, though, is that this is an area that no one needs to get into in order to resolve this matter. If the disputed material was in articlespace, or otherwise presented in Wikipedia's editorial voice, no reasonable editor would dispute that it failed BLP and needed to be removed. BLP applies generally to all material outside articlespace -- except material "related to making content choices". Editors are allowed a reasonable degree of freedom in discussions of what should be included in articles, and are not subject to the rigorous sourcing requirements of BLP in those discussions. This both facilitates useful discussion and prevents the infinite regress that would result if a disputed claim were immediately removed from talk page discussion under the same standards that would be applied to statements in articles.

Saying that Anita Sarkeesian is an "expert" on "sexual harassment" is contentious. (Whether it should be is a very different issue, as is whether she is sufficiently familiar with the subject to comment on it reliably.) The statement, without sourcing, doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't in an article, and it was part of a discussion relating to content choices, albeit at some remove. If the disputed statements had been made in a talk page discussion related to inclusion of Sarkeesian's statements in a Gamergate-related article, it is unlikely they would be seen as objectionable, in part because it's clearly an editor's opinion about Sarkeesian's reputation/stature. "Researcher X's opinion on the link between vaccines and autism can't be trusted because he makes big bucks as an expert witness for one side in the dispute" doesn't belong in an article, but we can't have useful discussions on whether Researcher X is a reliable source if we insist, in effect, that a case must clearly be proved before it can be argued.

Now I don't know just how closely the discussion that led to the block is related to a content choice. It comes from an arbitration discussion related to a talk page discussion of media commentary on Gamergate. What should be clear, however, is that it's not obviously unrelated, and therefore isn't an obvious BLP violation. BLP isn't limited to articles, but it also isn't intended to stifle reasonable content-related discussions. There are limits, but the content at issue here doesn't remotely approach them. FPAS got the outcome right, even though I wouldn't agree with their "outrageously lame" description, but if there was a BLP violation (which I doubt), it certainly wasn't obvious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor
Echo Jbhunley. This is nothing like the situation described by The Big Bad Wolfowitz, in which a researcher - whose work is being considered for inclusion in an article - is accused of having a conflict of interest. That's still something that ought to be sourced, but in the present situation, we have an individual being accused of a serious crime by proxy. And not just any individual, not a potential source, but instead a party to the controversy being argued about. There is no article on Wikipedia about him (although there is about the purported victim of his alleged wrongdoings), and in fact as far as I can tell no representation anywhere on Wikipedia of his views or his side of the story. Further, (I only follow suit out of a paranoia that I would violate some unstated rule by doing so) everyone seems reluctant to even name this person. Yet apparently it is okay to say for established editors to say anything negative they like about him, in the current climate. Isn't that kind of treatment precisely what BLP is meant to prevent? Is perhaps the avoidance of his name meant as an end-run around BLP policy? Because if that's all it takes, then I submit that the whole endeavour is meaningless, as it takes no effort to determine his name with simple, obvious Google search terms. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor
TDA, I think Thryduulf's point is that they aren't viewing this as a viable WP:BANEX. You may have thought it was, but if the powers that be don't agree with you, that puts you in violation. It's a risk you run when you wade into an area you are banned from, rather than just notifying an admin. 76.93.226.132 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Some appear to think that the underlying passage might conceivably have been a violation of WP:BLP. This seems far-fetched; that it was thought a clear or unmistakable violation seems incomprehensible.

In the August 29, 2015 issue of The Guardian, Jessica Valenti wrote a 3000-word story about Anita Sarkeesian, titled in the Web edition "Anita Sarkeesian interview: 'The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse'". The Guardian is an old, large, and revered British paper, and I remind the committee that Britain’s laws regarding newspaper defamation are famously strict. A major newspaper devoting such a lengthy interview on the subject of abuse and internet harassment to Anita Sarkeesian is itself a strong argument that Anita Sarkeesian is considered an expert on the intersection of internet harassment and abuse. Sarkeesian’s many interviews and lectures provide further evidence if evidence is desired.

That interview includes the following paragraph:


 * She is frustrated by the way GamerGate has been covered in the media. “All the stories kept decentring the fact that it was domestic violence,” she says. Indeed, the movement was born when a 25-year-old software developer named Eron Gjoni posted a 10,000-word blog about his ex-girlfriend, video game designer Zoe Quinn. In the blog, he recounted the minutiae of their relationship and outlined her supposed wrongdoings and infidelities. Quinn has said, “It is domestic abuse that went viral, and it was designed to go viral.” (Gjoni linked to the blogpost in forums such as 4chan, well known for vicious online harassment.)

That is the paragraph under discussion at the start of this edit war, which a topic-banned editor undertook lest a Wikipedia talk page mention material that had, hours or days before, appeared in one of the world's great newspapers, and which was clearly attributed to its source in the paper and in my paraphrase thereof. (I believe the same quotations were used, in opposite sequence, in a second essay that appeared in a different publication about this time; we can resolve that if you think it useful.)

Bending over backwards (as this committee seems to insist we do), we might walk through the criteria outlined at WP:BLP.
 * explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source: the source was already used in Gamergate articles and should have been familiar to all active editors; it was impeccable. Talk pages typically assume a general familiarity with well-known sources. In any case, there has never been any question raised that Sarkeesian did not say what I attributed to her, or mean precisely what I reported.
 * tone: this captures the precise tone or the Sarkeesian and Quinn quotes by repeating their simple language verbatim. If the committee can do better, I would be interested to see their work.
 * balance: this is precisely the point Sarkeesian has made, repeatedly, and with which virtually all reliable sources concur. The statement is simple and clear; I paraphrase it simple and clearly.

It should go without saying, but apparently cannot, that Sarkeesian and Quinn use the terms "violence" and "abuse" metaphorically to describe the impact of written or spoken words; we are referring here to hurtful writing, not to literal kicks and punches. The use of this language should be familiar to all members of the committee and indeed to all Wikipedia editors, and I will forbear (for once!) to catalog any of the innumerable examples in literature, law, and criticism. If the committee really wants examples, ask me or consult any Womens Studies department or department of literature, beginning perhaps with The Man Of Property.

I conclude that it might have been nice to see a defense from this committee of a hard-working editor who has been careful to adhere closely to BLP, whose work was termed a violation of WP:BLP to gain a narrow and temporary advantage in a dispute, and whose reputation has again been unjustly and uncaringly disparaged for upholding Wikipedia’s supposed policies. Whether the committee is any longer guided by policy is certainly open to doubt. I will not write more without invitation, as the committee seems disinclined to hear me, but if I can be of service I will be happy to do what I may.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Speaking of BLP violations, let’s review the bidding: The standard here is a "blatant and obvious BLP violation". Can repeating Sarkeesian’s own words, as quoted both in the headline and the body of perhaps Britain’s leading newspaper, constitute an obvious BLP violation? Can it be a blatant and obvious violation to say that Sarkeesian is an expert if major newspapers regard her as one? Compare this page's decision to condone an administrator’s claim that he knew of a named individual’s sexual misdeeds but could not write about them on-wiki "at this time"; the standard that apparently applies here is that widely-published and expert opinions that criticize guys are obviously BLP violations, but sexual innuendo against their victims is not. Indeed, this page is used to defame the reputation of a professional critic who is accused above of not being an expert -- simply a woman "involved" in Gamergate. Shameful. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian published a 3000-word interview with Anita Sarkeesian
 * The headline of that interview was: "The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse"
 * In the interview, Sarkeesian cites a specific example of abuse.
 * Sarkeesian is indeed an expert on feminist criticism, as indicated by her many lectures and interviews. In any case, The Guardian clearly regards her as an expert.

It is widely known that Sarkeesian has written and spoken extensively on online sexual harassment, which is in fact the topic of this interview. She was asked whether a specific, widely-discussed online act was abusive. She gave her answer, which may not be the answer you would have given. It is not Wikipedia's place to substitute the judgment of individual editors for the judgment of reliable sources: an unimpeachable source here said "this expert has stated that this act was abusive", and you maintain that not only is reporting the unchallenged statement in The Guardian a BLP violation, but you continue to maintain that it is a blatant and obvious BLP violation while continuing to use Wikipedia to denigrate the reputation of the subject. For reference, Sarkeesian holds an MA in Social and Political Thought (York) and


 * ...has been interviewed and featured in publications such as Forbes, Wired, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. She was the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award, she was given a 2013 honorary award from National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers and was nominated for Microsoft’s 2014 Women in Games Ambassador Award.

This is the person whose credentials are so weak that her opinion on online abuse is blatant and obvious BLP, and whose claim to expertise myst be redacted? Seriously? That this is countenanced by the arbitrators beggars belief. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry: my conflict remains with an Arbitration Committee who, apparently, consider repeating an uncontroversial headline from a feature article in The Guardian to be a "blatant and obvious" violation of BLP; I'm defending my own professional reputation since -- unlike many others -- I take responsibility for what I write here. I think the increasing capture of Wikipedia by right-wing anti-feminists is a shame and a concern not just for the project but for society; my experience has also been that, regrettably, one has to shout in order for Arbcom to notice. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Sarkeesian is a noisy person in a narrow walled garden within the estate of feminist studies. Her "expertise" is dubious, although she is certainly a "talking head" and is entitled to her opinions like everyone else. In so far as her expertise exists, it seems to have an element of self-perpetuation through a cycle of promotion. I've no idea on what grounds you think that The Guardian is perhaps Britain's leading newspaper, although it is certainly the daily newspaper in Britain that most stridently supports feminist politics of all shades, and it does like to quote so-called experts who quite often turn out to be little more than exceptionally good self-publicists and/or highly opinionated loudmouths championing various pressure groups etc. Some are even regular op-ed columnists. This - "perhaps Britain's leading newspaper" - is yet another example of you making vague suggestions to bolster supposed authority. FWIW, I read The Guardian pretty much daily and have done so for over 30 years. I like it but, well, most people read other papers. I suggest that the arbs ignore what you say, as you seem to think they are doing already. They can make their minds up without it. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GamerPro64
Should this request be closed since TDA got blocked for a month? I noticed he got blocked at 16:06, 22 September 2015 so it doesn't make sense for this to still be up if he can't continue here. GamerPro64 00:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

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



GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The BLP ban exemption is for blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations of BLP ("John Doe is a child molester" type stuff). If the matter is more nuanced, and especially if it's controversial, banned editors shouldn't be touching it, as they've already been excluded from the area for less than optimal judgment or conduct in that area. And certainly, if other editors in good standing disagree and revert, the matter is at that point controversial, so edit warring at that point isn't be acceptable at all. I can't be clear enough that BANEX is for dead obvious, totally uncontroversial cases of vandalism or BLP violation, and it is not meant in a way for the topic banned editor to reinsert themself into controversial areas or discussions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We can impose stricter remedies than WP:BANEX if we want to. We didn't at this juncture but that is neither here nor there. As for the issue at hand, TDA should start making a case why he shouldn't be banned for edit warring on a noticeboard about gamergate. Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. TDA, you managed to breach all three of your restrictions in one go - you are lucky the block was not longer. Even ignoring the fact that you shouldn't be anywhere near noticeboard discussions about Gamergate, WP:BANEX does not permit you to edit war under any circumstances. If you do this sort of thing again then we will very likely remove even the standard exceptions (if you are not indefinitely blocked before then). Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted by Seraphimblade above, the exemptions are only for "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial" violations of the BLP. When other editors in good standing disagree with you about whether something is a BLP violation or not then it is by definition none of those and exemptions do not apply. If it takes a paragraph to explain why something is a BLP violation it's not obvious and the exemption does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation was not sufficiently blatant to be exempt from the scope of the sanction. The block was valid. Yunshui 雲 水 11:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop using this as a place to further, what looks like, a personal conflict. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NE Ent at 01:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Replace numbered anchor tags in Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
 * with word tags as suggested by User:Timotheus Canens/DS tags

Statement by NE Ent
The numbers on the DS page (e.g. 7.4) are not a good idea, because: a) they make the page look too much like code of statutes, and WP:NOTSTATUTE, of course, and b) If you provide anchors, someone might wiklink to them. And then someday some committee might revise the procedures, and then "7.4" might not be the fourth section, so then you have hyperlinks pointing to the wrong section, or sections numbered like 7.2, 7.3 7.31, 7.4, or 7.2, 7.4
 * @Guerillero: fully protected page. NE Ent 01:58, 29 September 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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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


 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Just do it -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus of everyone who commented in the now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 17. Callanecc did send the message to the clerks mailing list, I responded there to the effect that AGK should be given a chance to comment as they were the most active arbitrator in that discussion, but to go ahead if there was nothing after a few days. Those two messages constitute the entire thread, so as far as I am concerned there is no reason for you not to go ahead and implement this in the manner Guerillero suggests, although being British I do feel compelled to point out that other sportswear manufacturers are available. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: GoodDay (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 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
 * Steven Crossin

Statement by GoodDay
May I please have my diacritics ban lifted. I believe there's no longer a reason for it to exist, as it appears that the topic itself has been settled by the general community, in favour of dios usage. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Response - I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Response - If WP:HOCKEY has chosen to abolish the diacritics compromise & thus have chosen to include diacritics on North American hockey articles (including NHL team articles rosters), then I've no choice but to abide by it. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Query from Resolute
If you believe the community has settled in favour of using diacritics, when is your position on our old compromise within WP:HOCKEY? Resolute 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Crossin

 * Since I was notified about this request, I'll make a brief comment. I largely side with the opinion of ArbCom here - the last request to lift the restriction was less than three months ago and I think not enough time or things would have changed since then to provide enough to support overturning their decision from less than 3 months ago. Steven   Crossin  (was Steven Zhang) 06:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
While I understand the reluctance of arbs and most commentators to remove this sanction, it would be nice to see some progress here.

GD claims, and we have no reason to misbelieve him, that he is "no longer obsessed with diacritics" - whereas those opposing his request have no stronger argument than "insufficient passage of time" - or the Catch-22 argument "anyone asking for a remedy to be lifted should be denied because the request shows that they are unreconstructed." Neither argument is appealing because both are ad-hoc and neither concomitant with a fair process.

Nonetheless concerns need to be addressed. What, then, should be done? There are a number of options that spring to mind:


 * 1) Limiting the duration of the restriction.  This saves Good Day from having to return and face the "too soon" or Catch 22 arguments once more.
 * 2) Imposing a test period, during which such edits are not forbidden per se, and at the end of which diacritic behaviour will be reviewed.
 * 3) Reducing the scope of the restriction.  For example permitting discussion of, but not editing of diacritics.

Or indeed any combination of the above.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC).

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * What has changed since your last appeal was declined in July? Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. I'm sorry I just don't believe that, given how tendentiously you clung to the idea of getting even smaller exemptions last time. That request was open from 29 May to 3 July (36 days), yet 70 days later you're back here again asking for exactly the same thing - to me that shows that actually you still haven't let go. When you have a couple of years or more of editing cleanly in other areas, with no pushing boundaries and no appeals or amendment requests related to the restriction, then we might be convinced you really have moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. Doesn't seem anything has really changed from two months ago. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline L Faraone 
 * Accept Whilst I do think it's rather poor form to re-request this so soon after it was near-unanimously declined, I moved to accept last time (with the proviso that a 0RR restriction relating to diacritics was put in place) and see no reason to change my position now. Yunshui 雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline  Roger Davies  talk 10:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Status of WP:CUOS (October 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by L235 at 05:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight

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 L235
The banner at the top of Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight currently states: This page is a procedural policy, and documents an extension of the arbitration policy developed by the Arbitration Committee in consultation with the Wikipedia community. Any significant edit to this page should have approval from the Arbitration Committee.[...]" However, the page is most definitely not a "policy" in the sense that it is created by the community, and not a part of the arbitration policy as it was not ratified by the community per WP:A/P. It appears to be closest to a procedure (being amendable by the Committee, and being a subpage of "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee" rather than "Wikipedia:Arbitration"), but it may not even be that because I don't see that any of it has been formally adopted by motion or resolution of the Committee. Could the Committee clarify the status here?
 * What I'm really asking here can be summed into:
 * Can the Committee change it, notwithstanding the community's wishes? If so, then it is not a policy per Arbitration/Policy; it is a Committee procedure (or maybe an information page), and should definitely not be called an "extension of the arbitration policy";
 * If the Committee can't change it without community consensus, then the Any significant edit to this page should have approval from the Arbitration Committee part of the banner should be removed, and either link to Arbitration/Policy or just not be there, implying that the community may change it as they see fit;
 * Also, if the Committee can't change it, then is it binding on the Committee to do all appointments this way?
 * I understand that WP:NOTBURO, but these are actually substantive questions. A lot of work has gone into making sure that procedures created by the Committee are separate from policies, and if you recall the original ratification of the arbitration policy, some support was contingent on the Committee absolutely not creating policy (e.g., support #106 by, #134 by , oppose #18, and others). Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with and  that the page is a Committee procedure. Calling it "policy", even "procedural policy", is incorrect, in my opinion. L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 22:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand: policies such as WP:CRAT and WP:IPBE are procedural policies. WP:CUOS, if it is modifiable by the Committee, is not. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , why make this complicated and use a free-form template? There's already the standard:
 * Though it does look like the Committee is done with this request and will not action it, so no real use discussing further. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 02:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer from NE Ent
"Can the Committee change it," yes per own policies. It's generally understood any page title starting with Wikipedia::Arbitration falls under management of the committee, and editing there requires at least the passive approval of the committee. NE Ent 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Per request, suggestion:

Note the existing page header isn't actually true -- although the en-wiki arb policy page does say the committee appoints CU, it's actually the WMF page which is binding. NE Ent 02:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hawkeye7
WP:Oversight is not an arbitration policy; it is a deletion policy. And Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight is a procedural policy that implements it. Per Arbitration/Policy, the Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope. It is therefore the case that ArbCom can change it without community consultation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (CUOS)
It's agreed that this is not "policy". Therefore L235's suggesting that it not bear a label calling it "policy" - even if it is qualified in such a way as to make it clear (if someone looks it the meaning of "procedural policy" in the history of a discussion linked to from the talk page of a category) is hardly bureaucratic.

I'm sure the combined intellect of those perusing these pages can come up with better terminology. (It reminds me of soap-free soap...)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Status of WP:CUOS: Clerk notes

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



Status of WP:CUOS: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It clearly says it is a "procedural policy", which links to Category:Wikipedia procedural policies. The talk page of that category links to the discussion which created it. It is not, and does not claim to be, a "policy" in the usual sense, but rather it is a procedure (and associated information) that supports the arbitration policy - i.e. it is "an extension of the arbitration policy". I'm really struggling to understand what is not clear about any of this, and if there has been a lack of any formal adoption (if such is required) then WP:NOTBURO firmly applies I think. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you (or anyone else) are free to make a specific request for a change to a different terminology and we'll consider it. Until that point it's not worth any more of the committee's limited time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hawkeye and Thryduulf. AGK  [•] 23:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * the above three have already said all there can be on this one. Courcelles (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This request can be archived at any time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Gun control (Gaijin42) (October 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Gaijin42 at 20:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control
 * Lifted/loosened

Statement by Gaijin42
It is now 10 years, 63 days since my topic ban in gun control was applied , 10 years, 55 days since the change I made which was found to violate the topic ban. Further it is 10 years, 179 days since the most recent of the diffs used in the findings against me in the case, and most of the diffs were 7 months prior to that. 

First the mea culpa : While I believe that the opinions of Halbrook and others constitute a valid "notable minority viewpoint" under WP:NPOV and WP:RS sufficient to receive minor coverage in mainstream articles I acknowledge that
 * there is not (and was not) consensus for inclusion of these viewpoints in mainstream articles,
 * and that I failed to recognize and abide by that lack of consensus,
 * and that during that time I did contribute to a battleground with edit warring, incivility, and the other findings in the case.

On the behaviors : In the time since my ban was imposed, I feel I have otherwise been a productive member of the community, and have not had any sanctions or blocks applied (with the exception of the early topic ban violation mentioned above). (1 warning for incivility which was later rescinded by Callanec User_talk:Gaijin42/Archive_2) During this time I have been involved in several controversial/hot areas a number of which are under DS (ARBPIA, BLPs, ARBAPDS) and have been able to engage with editors of all persuasions without significant issues. I have taken particular care to not engage in warring, and engage with those on the other side of disputes with me, working to build a collaborative environment that conforms with wiki policy. I believe I have shown I can act appropriately in hot-button areas and that I deserve a second chance in the gun control area.

On the topic area itself : if my topic ban is lifted I will abide the consensus described above. Further, I will not initiate any actions to try and change that consensus (No new RFCs, WP:BOLD changes etc) in mainstream articles. Even if the ban is fully lifted, I  have no immediate plans to edit to that effect in the "nexus" areas where the topic is already discussed, such as  Nazi gun control theory or Gun_Control_in_the_Third_Reich_(book).

If the committee feel it is not appropriate/timely to completely lift the topic ban, possible stepping stones would be some sort of probation, mentorship, 1rr, or to narrow the topic ban to the Nazi gun control theory topic itself. If that path is taken I request that the ban be more narrowly construed, as "broadly construed" would cover the NRA, and Stephen Halbrook, etc which are central to the wider topic of Gun Control. (Although obviously any edits dealing directly with the narrow topic area would still be verboten) (Halbrook for instance has been significantly involved in all of the recent SCOTUS gun control cases, and many of the lower court cases, including District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, Printz v. United States etc). See also my 3rd point below about "broadly construed" and american politics.

In regards to why I am making this appeal, First of all I feel that I can be a valuable member of the community in the broader GC topic area, and would like to resume editing there. A few of the things that I would edit off hand are :


 * Peruta v. San Diego (decided in February 2014) (along with several other cases with results for both the pro and anti side) are not covered at all in Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 * Other SCOTUS decisions not covered http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/opinion-analysis-an-equitable-result-in-henderson-v-united-states/#more-228263 (not to be confused with our article on Henderson v. United States which is a different case with the same name
 * I was previously quite active in the gun-involved current events articles such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Jordan Davis, Marissa Alexander case, Byron David Smith killings and would like to participate in future similar articles. As an example of how I can contribute positively in this area, during the ban I have been significantly involved in the Shooting of Michael Brown Shooting of Walter Scott Death of Freddie Gray which all involved uniformed on-duty police officer so did not involve gun control implications, but otherwise has a lot in common with the gun control implicated articles.

Secondly, I would like to be returned to general full standing in the community. As a specific example, I have had fairly significant involvement in SPI with a good track record of identifying socks I run across. I made an application to become an SPI Clerk but was declined with both  and  mentioning  this sanction being a reason for declining. If in the future I were to apply for this, or other permissions/roles, I would like to have this not hanging over my head any longer.

Thirdly, One of my main areas of interest in editing is politics, legal issues and court cases in general. Due to the way the legal and political system works gun control topics often interact with non gun control topics (and visa versa), similarly notable judges,lawyers, and politicians are involved in cases across the spectrum, and therefore the ban interferes with editing far outside the gun control topic area. One specific example : the clarification request I made in November 2014 Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control the ban made working on an Obamacare article more complicated and working on the Commandeering article virtually impossible. Also, as election season heats up, gun control is again a major topic for many candidates, and the "broadly construed" bit starts risking being an "american politics" topic ban (particularly in light of how the Commandeering clarification went.

Two clarifications, by "normal arbitration appeals process" do you mean this process we are doing right now? Or appeals directly to the admin/AE/AN for DS type actions? Also, regarding the 1 year lift, is that automatic, or do I need to come back here for confirmation in a year? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

pinging you in particular since you had commented already, consider this a friendly nudge to you and your cohorts :) (Some delay is understandable, with all the kumioko drama and other events aroudn the wiki, but this seems like an easy one to cross off the honey-do list!) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cwobeel
I was not aware of this ban, but despite being almost always in opposing ends of content disputes with, I have found him to be very mindful of respecting policy and engaging civilly and respectfully in dispute resolution. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:16, 5 October 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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Gun control (Gaijin42): Clerk notes

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



Gun control (Gaijin42): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My initial thinking is that a trial suspension of the topic ban would be acceptable. I'm not in favour of a narrowed-scope tban, which could easily descend into wikilawering, but I believe I'd be content to suspend the ban for six months and then repeal it if no issues crop up during that period. This is not a vote to accept at the moment, but I'm definitely leaning that way. Awaiting further comments before making a firm decision. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The appeals process would be that laid out at Banning_policy. Once the suspension expires (assuming the ban is not reinstated) so would the topic ban, though you might need to remind someone to update Editing_restrictions at the time. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The usual suspension is a year (and given the contentiousness of the area, I'd probably more favor that), but I'd certainly be willing to consider doing that. I'd like to get some more comments before we consider if we should put up a motion, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have limited time available for arbitration matters at the moment and no initial opinion about this either way, so please consider me inactive on this request. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would allow this request (initially on a probationary basis, as my colleagues suggest). AGK  [•] 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow, initially on a probationary basis. Doug Weller (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Gaijin42 topic ban suspension
's topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.



Support
 * 1) Since there's some support for this, let's turn it into a proper motion. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Doug Weller (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Not without some mild reservation, but worth seeing what happens. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  AGK  [•] 09:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Worth trying.  DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain
 * 1) Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Comments