Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 90

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * All anonymous IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days days tenure are prohibited from editing....

Statement by Sir Joseph
The existing statement has a logic hole that while unintended creates some ambiguity if read logically. If someone has fewer than 500 edits but more than 30 days tenure, because the statement is written in the negative, that person would not be covered by the clause. While an admin and ARBCOM might understand that the person should be covered, it should be rewritten to clarify that you need to be here 30 days and 500 edits because we should enforce rules as written not as intended. You can see one discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Removing_analysis_of_POV_author_in_Hebron_Pages where the logic was pointed out (originally, some user noted that it was clear, and when I pointed out to him the negative, he reversed, so clearly there is some murkiness.) As stated at the page:
 * 1) Shit, you're right. I'm reading it as it's intended, not as it's written. Okay, so ARBCOM needs to read logical conjunction. Clpo13
 * 2) With all those AND's in the the 500/30 ruling, it looks like a logic gate. The assumption at the time looks to be based on preventing brand new accounts and IPs from editing but it indeed fails to rule out old accounts with less than 500 edits, whether it be because the account holder doesn't edit much or the edit counting software doesn't count extremely historical edits. I'm striking my comment above as well. This looks to be something that needs a Clarification request at WP:AE Blackmane
 * 3) I think my statement covers what is intended by the ARBCOM ruling, I ran it through my SQL brain and it does work. I also switched to "fewer" because I believe that is more grammatically correct when you are counting something distinct. This should be a simple amendment that should clarify the issue.  Sir Joseph (talk)  14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
Despite the assertion above, the sanction is not written in the negative. It is quite clear, and positive: "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited...". The "and" makes it evident that only editors with both 30 days tenure and 500 edits are allowed to edit in this topic area. RolandR (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph's latest response does not make sense. The phrase "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited..." quite clearly means "all anonymous IP editors" and "all accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure". Parsing it the way Sir Joseph suggests would ban "all anonymous editors" and "all accounts with fewer than 500 edits" and "30 days tenure" (not "editors with fewer than 30 days tenure"). This would be nonsensical, and obviously not what is intended; to create such a sanction, the phrase would have had to read "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits or 30 days tenure are prohibited..." Since the arbitrators chose to use the word "and", not the word "or", it is clear that their intention was that editors were obliged to meet both criteria, not simply either criterion. At least I agree with him about the use of "less" instead of "fewer". RolandR (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And this has nothing whatsoever to do with mathematicians or computer programmers. We are editors on English Wikipedia, reading and writing in English and employing (or trying to) the common rules of grammar, not scientific specialists trying to programme a machine. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (Referring to an intermediate comment by Mrbrklyn, now moved to its own section). The rule IS tied together with an "and", not an "or": "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited...". And your personal abuse is not appreciated; please in future stick to the issue itself. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Clarification Statement by Sir Joseph
RolandR, because this is ARBCOM, we have to be exact in the ruling, and this statement is not logical in what they want. If you parse this out logically, it excludes old accounts with fewer than 500 edits. The statement as currently written, basically says: All anonymous editors AND all editors with less than 500 edits AND editors with less than 30 days tenure. Because of all the "ANDS" the last one means it is a distinct statement, similarly to how the 500 edits clause is distinct from the anonymous edit clause. It is a simple amendment to clarify that this ruling is for anonymous edits, and 500 edits and also those with less than 30 days tenure. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * RolandR, why are you breaking the statement the way you are, "All anonymous edits" and "all accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure" the way it is written, you can also break it as, "All anonymous edits and all accounts with less than 500 edits" and "30 days tenure" I'm not sure why you are against this proposal. This clarifies the intended ruling. If you take the written statement as it is now and parse it logically, it will fail what ARBCOM intended. Take it to a programmer or a mathematician. The fact that people are debating it means it is not 100% clear and if a few commas can clarify it then we should change it. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and the statement as written is ambiguous. You know what ARBCOM intended so you don't see the ambiguity perhaps. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @GorillaWarfare, your suggestion would have the same logic issue in your second statement. My suggestion, while a bit more verbose covers everyone, without ambiguity.
 * @GorillaWarfare,(mobile edit) I think because you have an "or" in your second clause it would allow older accounts with fewer than 500 edits. I'm not positive though. (Btw, the ping for me didn't work. I wonder if a space in the name breaks it)Sir Joseph (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

One bit of clarification, what is the difference between an "anonymous" IP address and a regular IP address? Does that mean that if we have a static IP who edits for years and just doesn't want to login or register they can edit? If so, how are we, or the edit filter, supposed to determine who that is? I think it might then make more sense to just say IP, or we need to figure out a way to somehow whitelist some of the IP addresses into the edit filter for known IP addresses. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think this language should be much clearer to all. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane
I also commented in the ANI thread that Sir Joseph refers to. The ambiguity arose because the reported user had only about 350 edits but the age of the account was well over a few years. The Arbcom ruling does not include such accounts. The spirit of the ruling was to prevent new accounts and anons from diving straight into the swamp of PI articles. The ambiguity unfortunately does leave a loophole whereby long dormant accounts with less than 500 edits could bypass the ruling. It would be worth clarifying whether these accounts are included under the ruling. It could be argued that such dormant accounts would not be familiar with the more recent ARbcom rulings and should thus be excluded from editing in ARBPIA3 sanctioned articles. Blackmane (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used what info is available based on the pop up tool and extended that as an example. How big your brood is, is of little importance to me and to this ARCA, as is how much time you can or cannot spend here. What is salient to the discussion is how the text of the Arbcom ruling applies to old accounts with few edits. Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Even if the original text is ok, which can be argued, the proposed text is better. So I support the change. Zerotalk 08:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity
The rule is confusing as written. What is surely intended is the following: "Editing in the I/P area is allowed only to editors with a registered account created at least 30 days previously that has been used to perform at least 500 edits." In this instance, it's clearer to write what is allowed, not what is prohibited. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses by Mrbrklyn

 * @Sir Joseph: No - it is restrictive enough as it is. If a use is less than 30 days or have less than 500 edits, then they should be resticts.  Anyone with an account over 30 days should be given a pass.  YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EDITED WIKIPEDEA FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS.  They should not be restricted. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @RolandR: You don't know what you are talking about Roland, which is not unusual. Logic is not a function of Comp Sci, and the language in predicate logic, which is what is being discussed here, was outlined by Charlse Dickens....


 * So learn how to read and apply logic, if you desire to be an editor on the big stage. If you can't handle this basic logic problem, how are you in a position to make decisions that affect the policy for MILLIONS of people.


 * What your intending it to say, and it is NOT what it says, is


 * ALL Announynous IPS and ACCOUNTS with Few that than 500 editos OR less than 30 days old.


 * You want the conditions to BE NOT tied toether with an AND, but EITHER case....


 * That being said, that rule would SUCK and would eliminate all us older people wh:o not only can parse basic logic, and even multiply in our heads.


 * I'm opposed to changing it. Those who are NOT 30 days old AND with 500 edits (both together) ONLY should be banded because then they are new.  Even if they have 500 edits, they should be at least 30 days old. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Blackmane: My activity has not been dormant. I have 6 kids that use this thing all the time, aside myself. What I don't have is endless amounts of time arguing over nonsense all the time, or a political ax to grind, like our group of radical leftists, and BSD activists on here. Mrbrklyn (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - It is important because from the matter of policy it is being asserted that old accounts are dormant, and they are NOT dormant, and suddenly come alive in some neferious means to disrupt paged. They are not dormant and neither, most important, are the users.  I'm sorry, I've been useing wikipedea and editing CONTINUALLY since its inception, and a policy that prevents my voice from being heard on at talk page sucks.  The ruling should remain, IMO, that accounts younger than 30 days AND less than 500 edits, should remain.  Once either of those thresholds are passed, there should be no restriction.


 * BTW - the software is not showing all my edits Mrbrklyn (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @Opabina and others: The meaning for the sentence of the restriction is not really a debating point.  It has, factualy, one meaning.  It is not abiguousitous either except that it confuses readers, but upon analysis it has ONE CLEAR meaning which is that accounts MUST be less than 30 days only and MUST have less than 500 Edit in order to be restricted.  I would say, don't change it.  The rule has been abused enough.  As for the idea that accounts are more than a single user, that is HIGHLY unlikely.  By changing this to an extreme restriction, you leave the editing in the hands of a few full time radicals and prevent the common working man with a chance to have an input.  Maybe extend the account age to 6 months?


 * Additionally, wikipedea software is not tracking editing numbers in history correctly. There are 100's of edits that are not in my account listing. Ihace had whole articles created, argued and merged... no record of them. Mrbrklyn (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There really are 2 ways of reasonably interpreting this statement using normal English parsing, although they are not exactly what Sir Joseph describes:

(1) There are two classes of editors who are prohibited from editing the pages:
 * All IP editors
 * All accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenures

(2) There are two classes of editors who are prohibited from editing the pages:
 * All IP editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure
 * All accounts with less then 500 edits and 30 days tenure

I assume that the committee meant the latter, only because the first is the equivalent of permanent semi-protection for a large class of articles, something which is not often done, however, English does allow the first interpretation, depending on whether the first "and" is inclusive or not (the second "and" obviously is from context alone). I would also guess that the vast majority of IP editors never reach the 500/30 threshold, so any IP that does is effectively in a sub-class of "non-registered accounts" (i.e. long-time editors) which should be treated the same way as a long-term editor with an actual account. But given the potential ambiguity of the statement, perhaps a clarification would be in order. BMK (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Threaded discussion is not allowed in this area. Your comments have been moved to a separate section, right above this one. BMK (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the bottom section is for the comments of Arbitrators only. No one should be posting there except Arbitrators. BMK (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Guerillero & Kirill: That seems sensible. BMK (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, although I don't think anyone has actually mentioned it, this request grew out of a discussion on WP:AN concerning Mrbrklyn's editing on Hebron and related pages, so it's probably as important to clarify the actual intended meaning of the sanction as it is to decide whether a clarification of the wording should be undertaken. Non-Arbitrator admins may want to take some action on the basis of the committee's decision. BMK (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
This is a decaration that all IP editors are vandals. Since they change and are not controlled by the IP editor, it may be an impossible goal. Semi-pretect it. Or semi-protect it and add the requirement to newly created users. But applying 500/30 makes it seem as if anyone can acquire the ability to edit, even IP's, but that is not the case. It becomes a false assertion that the article is not semi-protected and is ripe for abuse that avoids scrutiny. --DHeyward (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2016 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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


 * Tidied a bit. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My understanding of this (although I wasn't on the committee when it passed) was that this restriction was the equivalent of BMK's first description. And it equated to de facto semiprotection plus a restriction on those editors who do not have 30 days tenure and 500 edits. Yes this restricts ten year old accounts with less than 500 edits. Related to the semiprotection comment, in the last (or one of the requests since January) this was discussed, and it was stated (at least by me and nobody disagreed) that this was effectively blanket semiprotection, however semiprotection was not implemented on all related pages as it does not cover the entire restriction. Since we are having this discussion it seems that there is some degree ambiguity that must be addressed. I don't see how we can say that IPs with 30 days tenure and 500 edits can be considered "one user", and thus exempted from the restriction. I believe I also mentioned in a previous discussion related to this that we shouldn't just blanket reverted an IPs edit "because we can" if it makes sense not to, and that common sense should prevail (famous last words). --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the confusion above, I think clarifying this wording would be a good idea. Perhaps "Any (a) anonymous IP editor, or (b) account with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, is prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." I also think that 500/30-restricted articles should be semi-protected for the duration of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'm not sure I see the ambiguity, but your suggestion ("All anonymous IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days days tenure are prohibited from editing...") also seems fine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and proposed a motion since there seems to be some support for it here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed "anonymous" from "anonymous IP editors," though I'd be shocked if that would cause issues if left in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a wording tweak, but I think in context it's quite obvious that the intended scope is that editing these pages is permitted only by owners of accounts more than 30 days old which have more than 500 edits. (There have been various proposals to implement this by technical means, either by an edit filter or a new user group, and AFAIK both have used this definition - it'd be interesting to check if anyone involved in those discussions noticed or pointed out this apparent ambiguity.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My original intent was BMKs first reading. The statement in question was written to exclude three classes of editors: IP editors, named editors with less than 30 days tenure, and named editors with less than 500 edits. Some accounts can fall under more than one of these classifications. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adjusting the wording to better reflect our intended meaning. To avoid confusion, perhaps we can simply name the three classes of excluded editors (per Guerillero) explicitly? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."



Support
 * 1) As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure.  Clarity is always preferred.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) kelapstick(bainuu) 03:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) I've also done a minor c/e. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Definitely clearer than what we had passed originally. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Doug Weller  talk 16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain


 * Comments

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (March 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Howicus at 18:51, 22 March 2016 (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 Howicus
So, I came across a new user who ran afoul of the editing restrictions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I do not want to give them incorrect advice, especially in an area like this where a violation can lead to a block. The restriction states "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Does this also prohibit those users from posting on article talk pages of articles related to the conflict? I looked around on related talk pages, and I saw IPs and new accounts who posted without getting blocked, warned, or reverted, but I would like to know for certain. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I think there is a big difference between a talk page and an article page. It is not that often you will find a vandal participating in the talk pages of an area. There are people who instinctively revert any IP address edit in the ARBPIA area and I think that is stupid, whether it's in an article or talk page. We should be encouraging talk page edits, they are contributing ideas and while they can't edit the actual article, they may be helping someone else come to a better edit. Of course, if they are disruptive, then you have free revert. As to the letter of the law, which is your question, yes, they are not allowed to edit in the talk page or the article and someone could bring them to AE and have them blocked. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2016 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , this came up in January. The 30/500 restriction explicitly applies to talk pages. However (my opinion) best practice is to not blanket revert and throw blocks around willy nilly when non-disruptive Good Faith™ requests come from editors who are not permitted based on the restriction. If you are looking to advise a new user, I would advise them to not edit the talk page until they meet the criteria, as they may or may not find themselves blocked if they do. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Kelapstick said. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Kelapstick 2016a --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, seems good advice. Doug Weller  talk 15:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile-on "per Kelapstick". Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, so I did, thanks . Though I think I was thinking of whether or not they should be tagged for the edit filter. "Don't technically prevent such edits, but don't encourage them either" sounds right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When this was considered in January,only Guerrillio and Klapastic said it should apply to talk pages ; Drmies, Doug, Opabinia, and DGG said it should not. I remain of the opinion that it should not. If disruption occurs there, it can be dealt with, but there is no evidence that sine the remedy was passed, the new eds. are being disruptive there.  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Darkfrog24 at 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Blocked
 * 2) Topic-banned from WP:LQ, quotation marks and the MOS in general


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Blocked
 * I would like the block removed; the actions in question fall squarely under BANEX.


 * Topic-banned from WP:LQ, quotation marks and the MOS in general
 * Please remove or reduce. I can prove that the central claims of disruptive actions were false.  Please commute anything left to something that does not require me to guess which written rules to disregard or how to interpret unwritten ones.

Statement by Darkfrog24
If anyone wants a shorter way of understanding this matter, just read the December WP:LQ discussion for WT:MoS and this thread for the article space.

Block

My edits on February 28 fall under WP:BANEX: addressing a legitimate concern with the enforcing admin. I'd found out that day that I'd been topic-banned for things I can prove I didn't do. I spoke of the banned topic to provide evidence.


 * Question
 * Answer
 * Response

I was surprised that anyone believed "making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants," probably because I'd forgotten not everyone follows small-detail punctuation rules. (More below)

Admins said that they were not examining my response beyond ascertaining that it covered the banned topic.

The "discussing other users" was 1) the fact that my accuser made a false complaint and 2) his possible motivations.

Ban

Procedural problems


 * At nearly 10,000 words (1769+8121) (>200 diffs, >150 accusations), the complaint was far larger than I could handle. It had clearly been carefully prepared over a long period of time. Most of it sounds plausible superficially but every claim falls apart if examined closely ...which busy admins are unlikely to do when something that big is thrown at them.


 * It was an "editor comment" in a thread originally about something else. I was called for one incident but had to defend years of edits right then.


 * It was almost entirely false.


 * My requests for more space, time and specifics on which parts of the complaint to address were unanswered (until Feb. 28).


 * The ban was expanded under the reasoning that I'm "a net detriment to project MoS" without asking MoSgoers beyond my accuser. Even editors with whom I've butted heads disagree:

Faulty information

The enforcing admin quoted the complaint verbatim on Feb. 28, so the decision to ban me probably relied on it heavily. It misrepresented me as disruptive through exaggerations, lies, and omission of context and antidisruptive contributions.

Per wordcount, I address only some accusations below.

"Bogus" ENGVAR

The MoS rule WP:LQ is challenged roughly annually. I support changing it.

If the admins thought I was running around WT:MoS with a homemade fringe theory demanding Obama's real birth certificate, then no wonder. Actually, "British and American English treat quotation marks with closing punctuation differently" is the mainstream view, like saying "Bush was born in Connecticut." Not only is it verifiable, but RS give almost no dissenting opinion. This is probably why I was "not getting" why I'd been banned.

I could probably cite a hundred. Here are two:
 * Oxford University Style Guide (describes BrE, p.18, bottom right): "Note that American English has different rules about the use of quotation marks."
 * Webster's New World Punctuation: "In the American system ...a comma, which is placed inside the closing quotation mark ... In the British system, the comma goes outside" (p. 94-95).

There's question whether "British" and "logical" are one system or two but none that they/it differs from American. For national crossover, think of "-ize" vs "-ise" and you'll be close enough: Both appear in formal BrE, but formal AmE has only "-ize."

Tony says "rigid," but I've said for years that I'd change my mind if sources saying that the split isn't real (sources better than those that say otherwise) were found. They just aren't there. Only one even explores the idea.

"Battlegrounding"

I've crossed "party" lines extensively.


 * Exploring opponents' positions, to the point of typing out their sources. I don't know how I could be less dismissive or more focused on factual points raised.


 * I've added WP:LQ-protective content to MOS subpages. I was first to contribute at MOS:SUPPORTS.


 * When someone asks how to use quotation marks on Wikipedia, I say, "Here's how WP:LQ works." This was a newb with a question.


 * Per Thryduulf's concern about collaborating, I've supported proposals that don't match my position: When WP:LQ is discussed but not challenged, my participation has been appreciated.


 * Articles

Articles should not be exempted from WP:V to match the MoS. Even so, I've often said I'd support different text if sources were found: Noticeboard findings and another editor supported my position. An RfC suggested changes, which I implemented personally. I find the name "logical" biased, but I've never denied its verifiability.

DTS

I've supported proposals that the same person not challenge WP:LQ twice per year.

2014 was a moderate turning point. I decided not to re-challenge WP:LQ without new evidence, but when someone else does, I provide sources and counteract WP:BITE:

The December thread is largely about new sources and evidence——a higher content-to-rhetoric ratio than previous years.

Editwarring

If you tell me that has to change, then I have my answer and my project.
 * WP:LQ: I got a warning in September and haven't touched it since.
 * MOS:FAQ: There's been no edit war since 2010. June's traffic concerns new questions.
 * MOS:SUPPORTS: I'll stand by what I said in January. When no one's broken 3RR and participants continue to compromise and seek dispute resolution on their own, then intervention isn't needed.  Every edit was toward middle ground.

Compliance

I've done my utmost to abide by the ban. I have not mentioned quotation marks to anyone but AE admins, edited WT:MOS or punctuation articles, or left my sole slipup unreverted (<1 minute). I have focused on other areas. I followed every rule that I found out about as soon as I found out. In some cases, that was after stepping on a mine. In others, questions I'd asked prevented trouble in advance.

My first act upon being topic-banned was to swallow my pride and ask the AE admins what they thought I should change. I believed I was expected to return to WT:MoS, WP:LQ and all.

Requests

Please remove the block. The ban was never necessary in the article space, and I don't believe it's necessary at WT:MoS. Please commute anything remaining to something that does not require me to guess anyone's interpretations.

I request further space to address anything not yet dealt with to the committee's satisfaction.

"Stirring up discontent"

Dicklyon's not truthful about "nothing but detractors". If I were causing the discontent, then these challenges wouldn't have gone strong for days before I contributed: Plus dozens before I joined Wikipedia. Some of those who challenge WP:LQ are newbs and some are not.

SMcCandlish is not reliable. He'll accuse me of ignoring sources ...right after I type up his list of sources. His complaint about WP:WINNING is better directed at the guy who got boomeranged in September under and then spent months plotting revenge. Asking for sources when someone wants to add views to articles is not WP:OWN.

Laser brain's seven-year diff is here because it was in the complaint. It refers to something I stopped doing seven years ago.

Spartaz, all I can say is I've been doing my best, but to know why someone else made a decision, that person has to say. That didn't happen until Feb. 28, and there was a surprise when it did. If you're saying the ban wasn't because you thought I invented a fake ENGVAR claim et al., then what was it? If there is a non-falsified problem, I should know what it is so I can work on it.

More accurately, I say, "The MoS is interpreted as non-negotiable rules, so we should be careful about what goes into it." When someone proposes a new rule, I ask, "Do we need this?"

{{ping|

{{replyto|Ealdgyth}} There are many MoS regulars who'd agree about overconformity, most notably Blueboar.

{{replyto|Kelapstick}} I wish to be unblocked because I followed BANEX to the letter. I wish to be unbanned so that I may continue to edit articles about punctuation (and the rest of Wikipedia) and continue to participate in discussions of WP:LQ, which occur about once a year. One thing that is confusing this issue is that the articles are subject to WP:V, but the rose of sourcing in the MoS is much fuzzier. This is why the consensus at WP:MoS is the opposite of the consensus in the article space.

As for "I was right and they were wrong," yes, usually that sort of thing wouldn't matter, but Thryduulf told me that I'd been banned for being wrong, the "bogus" ENGVAR claim. Of course it's disruptive to make things up or push fringe theories, so it matters that that's not what I was doing.

I believe my participation in the annual discussions of WP:LQ has been helpful&mdash;the short version is that I prevent newbs from getting bitten and do the legwork of finding and typing out sources (even those that WP:LQ-supporters recommend)&mdash;but I'll admit it's subjective. However, there is no way any reasonable person could say that I've done anything to merit sanction in the article space. SMcCandlish here lied at AE because he wants to change Quotation marks in English to match his opinions. I keep saying, "You need a source for that." Not even "No." Just "Come back with a source; we could phrase it this way when you find one." But this isn't like the Israel-Palestine issue or American politics, where five sources say one thing and five other sources say the opposite; there are none to find.

As for accepting consensus, I've done that. Right now, WP:LQ is the rule whether I like it or not. That means I don't get to change British style punctuation to American, even in American English articles. But if someone says we should stop requiring British in American English articles in the first place, then yes, I'll back that.

I've done my best to keep it short, but I was accused of over 150 specific things, almost all falsely, and the enforcing admin credited eight. It's hard to keep that under 1000.

{{replyto|Drmies}} For me to understand the terms of the topic ban, someone must explain them. I get the part where I'm not allowed to talk about WP:LQ&mdash;which is why I haven't done it&mdash;but I got a one-week block for telling someone that I was under a topic ban. All four uninvolved parties thought the complaint was vexatious. All four admins thought it wasn't. There is a disconnect here.

And one correction: It's not "everyone" who's wrong about WP:LQ: {{collapse bottom}}

Drmies, no I did not unambiguously comment on an MoS matter. I referred to people as "MoS regulars." I'm just used to calling them that. They weren't even talking about a MoS matter anyway; they were talking about the topic ban that had been placed on me. That's an AE matter, from which I am not banned. Then, because I thought it might be coming close to the edge of the ban, I self-reverted less than a minute later.

If it's so unambiguous, then why did all three uninvolved editors say that the complaint was vexatious and the person who filed it was being petty?

The problem with that, {{replyto|Ophainia regalis}}, is that I wasn't testing the boundaries. Spartaz et al. just think I am. Everything I've done looked 100% fine to me beforehand. I feel like I'm in opposite land, where "What do you think as a positive change I could make?" brings an expansion of the ban, where citing policy brings an immediate block and accusations of playacting. When I was asked to do a voluntary ban, "Yes, what do you have in mind?" was somehow the wrong answer.. "Sorry, no, KillerChihuahua's suggestion of one post per day was the wrong answer; you were supposed to pick door #4 and to know you were supposed to pick door #4" was especially perplexing. I'm trying to work with everyone but I'm not telepathic. I'm not going to understand how other people interpret something unless they tell me. That's why I asked all those questions.

Can we change my punishment to something without so much guesswork?

Per litigation, the way I see it, my conversation with Thryduulf on Feb. 28 was my first attempt to renegotiate the ban. All those other conversations show me asking about how the ban worked or for the reasoning behind why it was laid down. I don't see those as the same thing. I also don't see why it isn't relevant: If I was banned for "making a bogus ENGVAR claim," then why wouldn't it matter that the claim wasn't bogus?

I have a request: I've focused here on how my behavior wasn't disruptive, not on how SMcCandlish was lying or on clearing my name. (Example: He claims that I ignore other people's sources; I've proven that I don't. He claims I added false information to the article space; I've proven that I didn't.  He claims I cast aspersions against his mental health; I never did.  He claims that I call people names and insult them; I never do.  He claims that I edit warred at the FAQ; I did not.) To prepare for this appeal, I had to read eighteen pages of ...well there's no way to describe it that's both accurate and appropriate for this forum. The filth that he said about me is still stored on Wikipedia, in AE talk page archive 188. I have a rebuttal, and I'd like to store it in the same archive page.

I really think you should talk to some more MoS regulars or to other people from Quotation marks in English before making a final decision. So far it's only WP:LQ fans who've found out about this appeal: {{u|BarrelProof}}, {{u|SlimVirgin}}, {{u|Dirtlawyer1}}, {{u|Blueboar}} might have a different perspective.

Wait a second, you read the AE complaints, but did you look at WT:MoS and the article talk pages? Just to set my mind at rest, you didn't just look at what people said I did; you looked at what I actually did, right?

{{replyto|Salvio giuliano}} I can continue to try my best, but a lot of this "That was a violation" is coming out of left field. {{replyto|Drmies}} Where do I go to learn more about how topic bans work? I've already read WP:TBAN many times and I've been watching WP:AE in an attempt to identify unwritten rules and other patterns, but this last takes time. {{replyto|Kelapstick}} It might be too late to change your mind, but I reread what you said about "fighting tooth and nail." I think I have a relevant counterexample: It is Dicklyon and SMcCandlish's position that "logical style" and "British style" are two different punctuation systems and mine that they're two names for the same one. I'm open to the possibility that I might be wrong. In January, I started this thread, in which I looked up and typed out eight sources that D and SmC claimed supported their position. "If we find that sources that call it 'British' say X and those that call it 'logical' say Y, then the idea that they are two different things could hold water. So far, that's not the case. We can keep looking." "So this one says 'logical' is placement by position." "You are saying that the American sources have 'confused and conflated' things and that you think they should be disregarded here. That is relevant. Do you have a source that corroborates this or did you draw this conclusion on your own? If the latter, how did you draw it?" Wikipedia's rules don't require me to look up sources for the opposite view. I did it anyway. If I only cared about fighting and winning, I wouldn't have spent the time or energy.

Statement by Dicklyon
Darkfrog24 does not understand what she did that was so disruptive over such a long time that she had nothing but detractors by the time it came to Arb. Here are what I see as the main points:


 * 1) Every time (since about 2009) some uninformed newbie questions MOS:LQ, she would  take the opportunity to jump in and fan the flames of potential discontent, saying how horrible it is for Americans to have to write LQ.
 * 2) In every venue she could, she would claim that Wikipedia's Manual of Style requires British style.  Neither the requires nor the British were quite correct, but these served her purpose of playing the aggrieved American and trying to subvert the MOS recommendation to use logical style by casting it as a violation of WP:ENGVAR.

The details of how disruptive she was, and who she pissed off when by hammering on this topic, need not be recounted here, and her attempt to refute the complaints by continuing the argument here just looks silly. It is apparent that she wants to continue in this vein. I take no position on the block, but based on what I see, the ban on MOS-related topics remains well justified. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
The topic-ban clearly cannot be loosened or lifted. Just the fact that DF24 is again trying to prove their anti-LQ case is actually another topic-ban violation. The purpose of allowing them to post here was to make a case for why their behavior will change and the previous campaigning, and related aspersion-casting, "I'm not getting it", and other behaviors, would not resume, but they totally dominate again, right out of the starting gate. DF24's appeal is nothing but a string of protestations and accusations all geared toward WP:WINNING, without one shred of recognition of why the ban was enacted, why it was extended, why it turned into a block, and why that became an indef. It's a "textbook" WP:COMPETENCE case. I've argued enough times with DF24 to know that they are plenty capable of detailed logical analysis, but when out-reasoned, out-sourced, criticized, or challenged, will habitually resort to feigning inability to understand the obvious and will just argue round in circles endlessly until everyone else gives up in frustration. It should not be anyone's full-time wiki-job to stop DF24 from owning MoS and English-usage articles, but it's taken three or four of us to even put a dent in this editor's insistent and intense PoV pushing.

I'm not going to go through Darkfrog24's laundry-list of complaints and wanna-be exonerations above (most of which are self-evidently bogus, and the rest of which are easily refuted if it comes to that). The evidence I linked to in the original AE discussion, if AE admins wanted to consider it (which they chose to), was not even really sorted and compressed yet, but a raw scrape from a few hours of digging around, plus diffs from a previous ANEW request (I expected to need to present the gist of it to ArbCom after much winnowing, if later attempts to get the editor to be more constructive failed, but the AE request by RGloucester made that moot). Even if we pretend for a moment that 90% of it is invalid, the remaining 10% would still be enough to justify the topic ban.

Block could be lifted, with a broader topic-ban. The editor is actually productive in unrelated topics. I'll leave it up to ArbCom and/or AE admins if they think this helpful editing is worth the price. Because the editor's singleminded pursuit of OR to get their way about grammatical trivia spills from projectspace into mainspace, the only potentially safe way to have this editor return is for the topic ban to require Darkfrog24 to stay out of English-language grammar, spelling, punctuation, usage, and style topics generally, both as article and policy subjects; to stop going on and on about it and just accept it and move on, and to not engage in any form of MOS/AT-connected dispute mongering against editors for daring to defy Darkfrog24's self-righteous mission to "correct" the 15-year balance of consensus compromises that forms the MoS. Otherwise, the vengeance-seeking will continue, and the linguistically confused, improperly sourced, and nationalistic PoV pushing will just shift from the quotation marks nit-pick to some other pet peeve among many that form the editor's "American English" WP:GREATWRONG to right. [I say all this as an American, with a degree in anthropology and linguistics, BTW.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)



Given that it's the MoS regulars who make a point of reminding people that MoS is a guideline not a policy, the editor in question here is the one who has done the most to make it read inappropriately like a policy, using a lot of imperative language where it once was more flexible, and it's Darkfrog24 who personally perpetuates the false legend that they were "punished" at ANI for not "obeying" MOS, while MOS regulars correct this falsehood every time it is told, I believe your "just ban the lot of them" sentiment to be misplaced and without a basis. MOS talk pages have been prone to text-walling in the past largely because of the WP:IDHT behaviors of DF24, necessitating re-re-re-repeat explanations of already-covered material. This exact same behavior, directed at admins to re-re-re-explain the scope and reasons for the topic ban, with no end in sight to the repeated circular demands to keep rehashing until everyone goes mad, is the principle reason DF24 was indeffed. MOS talk pages have been notably calm and quiet since DF24's topic ban, and the civility level has markedly increased.


 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@ArbCom/AE: Darkfrog24's claim that I was boomeranged by FPaS is more prevarication, hand-waving and "do not look at the man behind the curtain!" misdirection. WP:AN rescinded that action, retroactively.

I reported DF24 for editwarring, at ANEW (that's where the bulk of my later AE evidence came from, BTW; I just copy-pasted it from that case). FPaS shut the discussion down without looking into the details, with the intent to apply equal short-term topic bans to both parties, but found that DF24 did not have a recent Ds/alert, so he applied one-sided sanctions, shooting the messenger, and gave DF24 only a warning. Given that this was the second time FPaS had "resolved" a dispute he didn't take the time to understand by taking punitive-not-preventative action against me personally in favor of the other party, I appealed his action, and WP:AN overturned it,, retroactively. The warning DF24 received was not overturned.

So, the truth is pretty much of the of what DF24 said. How's that for "not reliable"? DF24 already knows all of this, and commented on it in detail, so is provably trying to mislead ArbCom, above. Here's me "plotting revenge", i.e. trying to find common ground and compromise with this editor:. Here's Darkfrog24 actually plotting real revenge, trying, after many warnings to drop it, to rope another editor into acting as DF24's battlegrounding proxy/patsy: (same diff as "in detail", above). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The 'you have to re-re-re-explain' act – the principal reason Darkfrog24 was indeffed – continues: "I've been doing my best to understand.... If there is a problem that I have to work on, then I need to know what it is", after half a dozen admins have explained what it is half a dozen times each. Now DF24 is trying desperately to rope in additional parties to battleground about the topic of the ban. This is WP:NOTGETTINGIT to an exponential level. It doesn't matter what arbitrary style question or other content dispute this behavior surrounds or who it's coming from; the deathmatch behavior itself is the issue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
Quite honestly, as someone who attempts to keep up with what's going on in the MOS mainly so I can stay out of the line of fire - none of the main editors in the MOS-area look like clean-hand editors to this outsider. I know that the behavior on the various MOS pages is such that I would never ever set foot there because it's long-winded, full of wall-of-text posts, and just plain nasty in tone. It's never going to get better until the "regulars" learn that the MOS isn't a law that must be obeyed and accept that with this many editors from many different countries that consistency across the whole project is a chimera. I'm more and more coming to the idea that topic-banning a large chunk of the regulars might solve this constant low-grade problem. (I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about my opinion - this is my opinion of the situation and I've offered it up for the arbs to consider.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will point out that I would consider DarkFrog a regular at the MOS. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1
I rarely look at or post on MOS talk nowadays. I do find that Darkfrog's views on several aspects of style are single-minded and have been prosecuted with eye-rolling predictability for many years. I don't think her arguments take account of all the facts, and clearly other editors are of similar opinion, since those arguments have typically gained little traction. There is a continuing pattern of wanting to over-emphasise the American–British distinction in English; this is a problematic crusade on an international site that in my view has come to a satisfactory accommodation of this duality over the past decade. Dicklyon's description is apt: "Every time (since about 2009) some uninformed newbie questions MOS:LQ, she would take the opportunity to jump in and fan the flames of potential discontent." It doesn't help the tone of the MOS talkpage. I wish she would stop flogging dead horses.

Ealdgyth, just a quick response: MOS is bound to get heated from time to time, since its function is to centralise arguments and solutions rather than letting a multitude of brushfires fester on article talkpages. It's not ideal, but much better than decentralised chaos; and the imprimateur involves more what editors can fix up than browbeating editors to toe some party line. It seems like a practicality. Tony  (talk)  14:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain
Noting for the record I have previously commented on Darkfrog24's WP:AE cases in support of topic bans and she dug up a diff from almost seven years ago where I commented that she was violating consensus at MoS but considered myself involved for unknown reasons. It was not her intent, I'm sure, but I was stricken by the illustration that even then, she was waging war about WP:LQ and this very serious pattern of battleground behavior and disruption continues to this day.

I believe the AE filing in which she was blocked speaks volumes about the root of the issue here and is essential reading before starting to peel back the layers. The topic bans of increasing scope and eventual blocks are all a result of Darkfrog24's complete unwillingness (or inability) to understand and accept reasoning and answers to her endless questions. All of this—the questions, the voluminous requests for topic ban clarification, the assertions of bewilderment—are tactics to continue litigating MoS issues and get back into the fray. Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to gain from Darkfrog24 being allowed to return to the battlefield, and a lot to lose. I did not want to see her blocked. I wanted her to learn to use her skills to improve Wikipedia and stop perpetuating disputes at MoS. But she continued to test the boundaries of her topic ban, continued to find ways to opine on MoS issues, until we collectively had to blow air out of our noses and block her. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
Darkfrog's statement appears overlong. Perhaps a clerk could consider refactoring the text?

The committee would be well served reviewing the AE discussions that led to the TBANs and the block. three discussions in the same archive appears to be a record.

Essentially DF refused to get the point of the TBAN and continued to keep relitigating the case under cover of seeking clarification. This overlong appeal that boils down to saying that everyone else was wrong and DF is right makes it explicit, should DF be allowed to continue editing, that they will continue to suck all the energy and time out of every available venue of complaint/query.

I already indicated that I would unblock as soon as DF indicated they would drop the stick. It appears instead that they have grasped the stick and are looking around for some more stray horses to strike with it. Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Darkfrog24)
I was the admin that imposed a couple of the topic bans at AE and the only impression that DF's subsequent behaviour has given me is that I was too lenient. The Committee just needs to read the above-linked AE discussions and the discussions on DF's talk page I was involved with to see why letting them anywhere near quotations will end badly for everyone. There is plenty of evidence there, and in their statement above, to show they are not interested in collaborating, discussing or even understanding why others disagree with them. Their aim is solely imposing their point of view on the project.

I also endorse the statements above by SMcCandlish and Dicklyon. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * the standard offer is not required here. All DF has to to do be unblocked is convince an administrator that they understand their topic ban or will cease disruptively re-litigating it. To date their attempts at re-litigation in the guise of seeking clarification have exhausted the patience of myself and several others - to the point where I seriously wonder whether the lack of understanding is intentional (nobody else seems to have a problem). The quotation marks issue has been discussed time and again over several years, and as far as I can recall from when I looked when this came up at AE there has never been a consensus for anything other than the current style - there comes a time when you have to admit that consensus is against you and move on. Attempting to get DF to do this and move on to productively editing something different. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

 * 1) In general a consistent style is a better choice than inconsistent style, even when the style chose is not the one we would prefer.
 * 2) In the vast majority of cases where there has been an attempt the community has been able to choose a style.  I can recall no case where someone has been censured for writing in the "wrong" style, or where the press has commented negatively on these style issues.
 * 3) It is quite legitimate to reconsider these style decisions from time to time, partly because the world changes, and partly because consensus changes.
 * 4) It is also true that calling certain styles by a nationality does appear to lead to intransigence and entrenched positions, overriding MOS:COMMONALITY, and damaging reader experience.
 * 5) Long running disagreements at MOS are common.  When even the MOS regulars consider an editor disruptive, something is clearly going wrong

Given this DarkFrog would be well advised to steer clear of LQ and the MOS for some time, even if there were no sanctions in place. Note that the quotation marks and quotation styles ruling was appealable in June, the later MOS ban not until February 2017.

I would suggest that Darkfrog engage in conversation with the community to understand the Standard Offer, or some reasonable variation, and take it up in order to be unblocked as soon as possible.

I do think that DarkFrog makes an important point, if not a new one, about the burden placed on volunteer editors by our various disciplinary systems.

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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



Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * waiting for statements --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline and reblock --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that we're looking at this, and any further comments (about the appeal, please; not about quotation marks) are appreciated; there is a lot of background to catch up on here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. Sorry, Darkfrog; having looked through the prior AE requests and their background, I entirely agree with Drmies below. There is no basis for lifting the topic ban, as the history up to and including this appeal shows repeated relitigation of the quotation-mark issue in every accessible venue. I think Spartaz' explanation of the block and its conditions were bang-on; the point at which you can be unblocked is the point at which you accept the topic ban and agree to work under its terms without repeatedly testing the boundaries. (In fact, you mentioned that you felt you were expected to return to MOS issues; better would be to take a long break and forget the MOS exists.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear: decline appeal and reblock. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to be unblocked to help change the MoS in a manner which is in line with the way that Wikipedia operates, which includes accepting the possibility that consensus might not go your way, than that is fine. From what I see here, you want to be unblocked to help change the MoS, and will not accept it if said changes are not how you believe they should be, and will fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of consensus. This appeal appears to me nothing more than I was right, they were wrong. As such, I cannot support the lifting of any restrictions at this time. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarity, decline and reblock. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can echo what Kelapstick said. And Dicklyon, and SMcCandlish. And then Kelapstick again. Yes, what is argued here is that everyone else was wrong, and a wall of text about minutiae is offered as proof. As for the block, you are blocked until you "understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it"; neither of these conditions are met, obviously. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Darkfrog, the diff you point to cites you and indeed, you are "unambiguously commenting on a MOS matter", as admin TenOfAllTrades correctly points out. If you don't understand how that comment on an MOS matter is a comment on an MOS matter, and that your topic ban forbids you from commenting on an MOS matter, then we are going to be done here very quickly. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me add that I fully agree with Salvio's "sadly". We want editors to edit. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline any modification and reblock. Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with OR, K-stick and Drmies. I see no reason to lift the topic ban and, sadly, agree that a block seems necessary, at least until you can convince an admin that you are capable of working within the boundaries of your restriction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline and reblock. Doug Weller  talk 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline and reblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Clivel 0 at 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * WP:ARBPIA3

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

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdJohnston&type=revision&diff=713061767&oldid=713028032]

Statement by Clivel 0
This decision prohibits accounts with fewer than 500 edits from editing any page that could be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". I would however like clarification as to what is meant by "reasonably construed" as this seems to be a rather imprecise term open to interpretation. For example, given that the vast majority of anti-Semites also dislike the Jewish State (even if the converse is not necessarily true) and therefore likely to take sides against Israel, is it the intention of WP:ARBPIA3 to stifle debate on anti-Semitism, or could that be an unfortunate side effect of an imprecisely worded decision?

A case in point being the Stephen Sizer page which Administrator User:EdJohnston has placed under the protection of the banner. Due to the imprecise wording of WP:ARBPIA3 I believe that User:EdJohnston has incorrectly applied the banner.

As a vicar there would be little of note about Sizer that would even merit his inclusion in Wikipedia if it were not for allegations by the Board of Deputies of British Jews that Sizer has over a number of years promoted and distributed anti-Semitic material. This eventually resulted in his six month social media ban by the Bishop of Guildford who stated "I have concluded that, at the very least, he has demonstrated appallingly poor judgement in the material he has chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic".

Also of some interest, but again in itself unlikely to be notable enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia, is Sizer's strong opposition to the doctrine of Christian Zionism. A doctrine which believes that the return of Jews to the Holy Land is necessary in order to full-fill a Biblical prophesy. Again this is not directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict although it is possible that both proponents and opponents of this doctrine could take sides in this conflict, something Sizer seemingly has done, yet I don't believe that in itself offers offers enough weight to place the page under the protection. Otherwise, almost any page mentioning Jews, Israel or anti-Semitism could at a stretch be "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Clivel 0 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re PIA3)
"Reasonably construed" is pretty standard phrasing on Wikipedia, and when I was on the Committee it was always taken to mean that if an uninvolved editor reasonably believed that the subject was related to the area of dispute and that applying restrictions would be of benefit then they may be applied.

The purpose of a 500/30 restriction is not to stifle debate - Wikipedia articles and talk pages are not forums to debate the subject. Wikipedia articles exist to present an encyclopaedic overview of the subject from a neutral point of view. The point of talk pages is to discuss the wording of the article and how to improve it. To this end, a 500/30 restriction facilitates the discussion in that it allows participation only from those who have at least a basic understanding of the point of the discussion and Wikipedia's policies and culture. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston (re PIA3)
My decision to put the ARBPIA banner on Talk:Stephen Sizer was discussed at User talk:EdJohnston. I gave my rationale to User:Clivel 0 for considering this article to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I had first become aware of the Stephen Sizer article on March 23, per a 3RR complaint. I closed that complaint with 3 days of full protection for the article.

It is evident that Sizer holds views about Israel that have drawn wide attention. Articles about Sizer don't always agree on how to summarize him. In his own blog in 2009 Stephen Sizer asserted "I do wish to see the present illegal occupation of Gaza, the Golan and the West Bank “disappear”…"  An article in Church Times says "On Monday, the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, announced that he had given Dr Sizer an ultimatum: stop your activism over the Israel-Palestine conflict or lose your parish." These sources indicate that Sizer has views that are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is a different controversy as to whether the views of Sizer are antisemitic, but he argues plausibly that he is not. If we were only discussing whether person X was an antisemite then it's unlikely that ARBPIA would apply to their article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2016 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 3 - General Prohibition: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Shouldn't this have gone to AE for wider review first, if Ed's talk page explanations didn't satisfy? I really don't see that ARCA or the committee needs to be getting involved in making rulings about specific articles, and Ed's reasoning for why this article falls under the restriction seems entirely reasonable and within administrative discretion to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is unclear. If the question is about how wide the net is cast, that's a valid question in individual cases but not yet a matter for this forum. If the question is about a specific article, that can be exciting but it 's not clear to me what it has to do with the 500/30 setup. And finally, if the question is whether "WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 [was written up] to stifle debate on anti-Semitism", the answer is no. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ed's explanation works for me also. And it definitely was not written to stifle debate on anti-Semitism. Doug Weller  talk 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What Doug said. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for clarity in our remedies, there's only so much we can define. "Reasonably construed" is an attempt to avoid trying to codify every last thing that is and is not within the topic area—a task that would be impossible. It is to be interpreted as Thryduulf explains above: if an uninvolved editor reasonably believes that the subject is related to the area of dispute, it is reasonably construed to be within the topic area. In this specific case, I think EdJohnston's application of the banner is acceptable per his explanation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an appropriate application of "reasonably construed". The restriction could not be applied to anything having to do with anti-semitism, but there is a clear connection to ARBPIA, as outlined by EdJohnston above.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline to consider as I consider this to be a reasonable exercise of admin discretion which is what I generally see the role of ARCA to be in enforcing discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Historicity of Jesus (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:35, 6 April 2016 (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 Hijiri88
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats. Cinteotl (FKA Fearofreprisal) is the page's creator and apparently wishes to maintain the page, but fears that commenting would violate his community-imposed and ArbCom-enforced TBAN. He therefore believes that ArbCom clarification is needed for the page to be deleted, and requested that I make the request for clarification (apparently the burden is on the party wanting the page deleted, not the party wanting clarification of the Arbitration case.

Another concern is that, apparently, the page is in some way linked to the Arbitration case, and cannot be deleted by MFD for this reason.

I feel that the page is an attack page, and I cannot recall anyone other than me bringing it up in the original case. The page is especially heavy on criticism of me, even though my Initial statement was literally the only thing I brought to the Arbitration case. I only mentioned the page in passing, and a page having been mentioned in passing and so ArbCom having "taken it over" and the page no longer being able to be deleted by community sonsensus seems questionable to me.

I am also concerned that Cinteotl creating and maintaining this page indefinitely in his userspace itself may qualify as a violation of his TBAN, although this was not the main reason for the MFD.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cinteotl
Before I can address the merits of the issue, I need assurance from ArbCom that I will not be sanctioned for violating my topic ban for any discussion I undertake related to this issue, here or at MfD. While this may seem a bit over-the-top, my concern is well founded: Hijiri88 attempted to have me blocked at ANI for violating a community Tban based on my having filed for arbitration.(, second paragraph)

Also, I will be unavailable starting this afternoon (GMT-7), until Monday morning. Cinteotl (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just back from a work conference, and am finally able to respond.


 * My primary concern, and the reason I wanted this issue brought to ArbCom, was the unconscionability of Hijiri88 making accusations against me at MfD, and then intimating that I couldn't respond there without violating the Tban. That seems to be a fairly clear case of baiting a banned editor.


 * ArbCom shouldn't allow this sort of behavior. I would suggest that Hijiri88 be asked to strike-out any unfounded accusations he's made against me at MfD -- including his claim that I'm a sock-puppet.


 * As for the actual content of the page at issue here: The only reason I didn't delete it over a year ago is that I was uncertain whether, if I did so, Hijiri88 would use it as a pretext, to try and get me sanctioned for violating the Tban. As he seemed to be a bit obsessed with me at the time, it seemed safest to just leave the page as it was. I really don't care one way or another whether the page is deleted. Cinteotl (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
Hello ArbCom, I started moderating the conversation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats and invited Cinteotl to join the conversation with the caveat that the deletion discussion should not be about the encyclopedic content of Historicity of Jesus but about policy based reasons the page should or should not be maintained - others have expressed concern that such discussion would be against the topic ban, and I feel that it is not and the MFD should be allowed to continue. — xaosflux  Talk 14:24, 6 April 2016 (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.

Historicity of Jesus: Clerk notes

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



Historicity of Jesus: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When will you appeal? If you appeal is not imminent, there is no reason to keep this page.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the community process work while keeping WP:POLEMIC in mind. This isn't the first time former evidence for an arb case has come up at MfD and it has worked in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, let the MfD run its course. If it's deleted we can still read it and I'm sure Cinteotl has a copy if he plans to appeal soon. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the MfD run,, I agree with your assessment regarding policy-based discussion about keeping the page not resulting in sanction. As mentioned, Cinteotl either has a copy of it, or can generate one fairly easily. If it is deleted it can be read by the Committee should it be requested for an appeal. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Doug and kelapstick. Cinteotl may keep a copy of the page on their personal computer if they are concerned about losing the content. If it is deleted, it can still be retrieved in the event of an appeal. Regarding your concerns about sanctions: It is okay for you to discuss the issue here (per WP:BANEX), but you should not discuss the page content in the MfD. I agree that policy-based discussion of subpages is okay, but you may find it difficult to do this without toeing the line of your topic ban. I also agree that you should not continue to maintain the page; if you choose to appeal, you may present your evidence directly in that request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare pretty much nailed it. Courcelles (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile-on "agree with GW". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What GorillaWarfare said. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill said it best. In the meantime, deletion has taken place. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Carl Hewitt (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Prof. Carl Hewitt at 03:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1)
 * 2) Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment


 * 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''


 * CBM


 * Information about amendment request
 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt
If administration gives its approval, then I will only edit talk pages of articles in addition to the user page and its talk page for the account. Hopefully, I won't get dragged into any disputes. It's fine with me if some publications are treated by editors as currently minority views in rapidly changing fields of computer science. Also, as the guidelines say, it is better just to ignore any personal attacks on me and not to say anything personal about another editor. It would be a great improvement if we could get new editors involved in improving the articles that have been blocked from editing in addition to the editors previously involved. Further suggestions are greatly appreciated.Carl (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC) PPS. I admit that I am clueless about some of the customs around here. (For example, I had to ask another editor for the definition of a "300/50 restriction". Also, I just noticed the yellow "Kindly read before editing this page" yellow block on my 30-inch screen above.  You are welcome to move my comments from Ruud's section below into this section. Furthermore, I just learned about "canvassing". Probably, there are lots of unwritten customs as well.) But I am happy to take suggestions!

Unfortunately, by its very structure Wikipedia is somewhat scandal-prone and too easily hijacked by a few with minimal accountability. Over the centuries, academia has developed robust processes and strong accountability. Robust processes are especially necessary in the midst of scientific paradigm shifts because people naturally resist change for reasons that are both good and bad. Scientific controversy is perfectly natural and productive in the midst of paradigm shifts. Using information from scientific publications can provide a foundation for Wikipedia coverage. In the midst of a paradigm shift, there is no consensus scientific view. Also, proponents of a paradigm shift are in the minority at the beginning and sometimes they never become a majority (in some cases because a field splits into disputing camps).

Good scientists put advancing the state of the art over narrow egotistical concerns. Academics at top-ranked institutions do not get any credit or prestige from appearing in Wikipedia; instead it causes them trouble if articles are inaccurate. Carl (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are at least 5 articles that pose particular challenges in that they have been blocked for a long time against attempts to make them better balanced and more accurate:


 * 1) The article Carl Hewitt is very obsolete.
 * 2) The article Actor model is lacking some critical references.
 * 3) There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness.  Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging.
 * 4) The article Logic programming is missing a critical reference.
 * 5) Also, the article Paraconsistent logic is missing an important reference.
 * Since I am an active participant in the above academic discussions, it is not clear how I can most constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, the above articles are currently inadequate.
 * It would be greatly beneficial if editors who have not been previously involved could help organize discussions to prevent falling back into previous dysfunctional patterns. A major challenge is developing better balanced Wikipedia articles whose development is not blocked by editors involved in the unfortunate history and thereby further alienating academics from contributing to Wikipedia. Of course, it would be highly desirable to attract more academic experts to contribute to Wikipedia in the highly technical subjects of these articles. However, because of some unfortunate experiences on Wikipedia, it is extremely difficult to persuade academics to contribute.  A general pattern has developed for the above articles of editors reverting suggestions for article improvement from its talk page.  The result has been that the articles have become increasingly unbalanced and obsolete.  Contributing constructively to these articles can require a great deal of expertise and specialized knowledge whereas reversion does not require any subject understanding.  For example, not allowing articles to reference the book Inconsistency Robustness may not be in accord with Wikipedia policies.  Perhaps the best fallback is to report ongoing controversies as fairly as possible relying on quotations from academic publications.
 * I am not looking to have my views or contributions unduly or unfairly represented. For academics, Wikipedia works best if articles are as accurate as possible given the limitations of academic publications. Carl (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
I would like to encourage Arbcom to discuss amendments to the original arbitration remedy that make article improvement and maintenance more straightforward. The persistent editing of particular articles and talk pages by numerous logged-out IP addresses, together with an inability of Dr. Hewitt to edit under a logged-in account because of an indefinite block, make article maintenance challenging. In particular, editors cannot assume that the IP edits are by Dr. Hewitt, nor can they assume that the edits are not by Dr. Hewitt, which makes communication challenging. If Dr. Hewitt were permitted to edit from a logged-in account verified by Arbcom to be controlled by him, it might facilitate article improvement by making it clear who is proposing particular edits. Unfortunately, the continued presence of tendentious IP edits even on the recent Village Pump thread suggests that longer-term semiprotection may still be necessary on the affected articles. I think Arbcom may be able to strike a balance that, at least, allows us to clearly separate edits by Dr. Hewitt from edits by IP addresses. (I will be traveling from March 21 to March 25, and my responses my be delayed.) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think that the general trend of discussion in this amendment request is unfortunate. As long as numerous IP editors (not logged in) post tendentious comments on article pages, and the official account for Dr. Hewitt is blocked, it will be impossible for Dr. Hewitt to make *any* suggestions on article talk pages. The current situation is that edits by the IP editors will simply be removed per the existing arbitration remedy, and articles will be semiprotected in some cases. If there were no more IP edits, and Dr. Hewitt edited talk pages under a single logged-in account, then it would be possible for him to at least *suggest* edits on talk pages. That is the goal I wanted to encourage in posting to this thread originally. Of course, all suggestions for article modification need to be weighed in light of Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:DUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." But, even the possibility of making suggestions on talk pages would require a willingness of all parties to come to a consensus here on a path forward. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that editing while logged in provides much more security against cyber attack, because no information about IP addresses is available about logged-in editors, even to admins. It requires a yet-higher, and rare, form of access call checkuser to determine the IP address for a logged-in editor. Thus using a single logged-in account provides IP address security along with a Wikipedia identity in which other editors can develop trust. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been "in the trenches" on some of the affected articles, I think the recent motion has the possibility of improving article maintenance and helping to make feedback from Dr. Hewitt more useful. I sympathize with the concerns about reducing sanctions before certain kinds of editing have stopped, but I want to encourage the committee to keep in mind the possibility of progress. I think there is little risk from the motion, because semiprotection and account blocks are still an option in cases of severe difficulty. I'm not certain that all issues can be resolved quickly, but for some issues (such as a home page link on the biographical article), I think that having a clear line of communication will allow for some relatively quick progress. I want to encourage arbitrators to consider the upsides and downsides of the motion in light of the ongoing difficulties affecting the articles. I think there may be real potential for progress. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
@Callanecc, CarlHewitt was blocked for abusively using socks - primarily to get around his Arbcom-mandated topic ban on autobigraphical editing. That would generally be seen as an arbcom-enforcement action even if it is not directly listed as such, rather than a normal admin action. Are you saying that because it was a block for socking, its not an Arb-enforcement? The cause was his socking to get round his arbcom-restrictions. If those restrictions didnt exist, he wouldnt have socked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MuZemike
I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive (when I was an SPI clerk, issuing the blocks based on the CheckUser's findings); the blocks were found to be in violation of the ArbCom remedy back in 2006 (and modified a year later in 2007 to specifically address the situations brought up in the various sock puppet cases).

That being said, if the current ArbCom wishes to amend the request given more modern circumstances, I have no opinion (nor any opposition) on it, provided WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:COI continue to be strictly followed. However, historically that has been more easily said than done, including the talk page usage. --MuZemike 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ruud Koot
(Disclaimer: I was one of the filing parties in the original ArbCom case.)

I think it would be preferable to have Hewitt edit under a single account instead of a multitude of accounts and IP addresses. However: Given the amount of time that has passed since the original case, I think it would be useful if the ArbCom at least said something on this matter. —Ruud 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Hewitt would have to do so voluntarily, as enforcing this is not really possible.
 * 2) Formally he is still under an ArbCom restriction against autobiographical editing and has been blocked multiple times violating this restriction and for sockpuppeteering.
 * 3) Over the past decade I've seen little change in his behaviour. I.e., he is still exclusively interested in autobiographical editing, not in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
 * 4) Over the years Hewitt has been continuing to disrupt the talk pages of several articles, which has been mostly handled by semi-protection. This would no longer be effective once his account would become autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure how long this single account would last, for this reason.

Regular semi-protection is sufficient to keep Hewitt-as-IP at bay. Both Hewitt-as-IP and Hewitt-under-an-alternate-account are easily spotted due to their singular interest and idiosyncratic manner of communication. I think we'd all rather see less protection being used than more. The pressing question is, I think, to what extent other editors are required to play along with Hewitt's game that these alternate accounts are supposedly "students" or "disgruntled academics".

(Probably needless to say, the "missing critical references" Hewitt is referring to are unpublished, usually historically revisionist, manuscripts penned by him, and the "academic controversy" he is referring to is one of the "Teach the Controversy" kind&mdash;it exists in his mind only.) —Ruud 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to second User:CBM's remark that having Hewitt being able to make suggestions for article improvements from a single account may be the least disruptive way forward. Concretely:
 * We should encourage Hewitt to contribute from a single account by having the ArbCom unblock a specific account for Hewitt to use. At the same time it should be made clear that certain restrictions are still in effect:
 * no editing of articles that were declared off-limits in the original ArbCom case,
 * suggestions on talk pages are allowed only as long as they remain constructive (i.e., no rehashing of the same "suggestion" over and over again, or posting of announcements of talks or papers), and
 * no vague insinuations or personal attacks.
 * We should discourage Hewitt from contributing using IP-addresses or alternate accounts by having a clear rule stating that contributions that (seem to be) coming from such accounts can be removed from articles and talk pages, and that other editors are strongly advised not to respond to remarks made by such accounts.
 * Hewitt's comments in this thread make me somewhat sceptical about this scheme working, but I think it would at least be worth a shot. Having him acknowledge to abide by such restrictions would also seem to be a prerequisite. —Ruud 13:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)
I'm opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion of 500/30 restrictions on those articles. All or almost all of the IP disruption they've seen has come from Prof. Hewitt and/or his associates. If the sanctions on Prof. Hewitt are relaxed and that disruption continues/resumes, then relaxing the sanctions has failed in its purpose, so in that situation the sanctions should be put back in place. Many high quality contributions to those articles (and math articles in general) have come from other IP's. And while the drastic 500/30 remedy might have been justified in extraordinarily inflamed disputes like Gamergate, it shouldn't be resorted to for comparatively minor stuff like this. I'm dubious towards Prof. Hewitt's appeal for various reasons including some of the content issues he mentions in his statement, but as everyone says, it's been a long time, so I'll stay neutral. ,, or might have something to say or know of some others to invite. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin
I don't know if this requires ArbCom action, but there are both ArbCom and community bans on Carl's (and his students') edits. I'm not sure the community ban could be removed without modifying the ArbCom ban. As for the ban, I would be in favor of Carl (or his students) being allowed to make suggestions on relevant article talk pages, but not be allowed to edit articles, make personal attacks (even if they think them justified), or repeatedly argue any points. I think this could be formalized, but I'm not sure, as Carl and his students have repeatedly violated the existing ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I could be considered "involved", although almost all of my dispute with Carl was acting as an Admin. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Charles Matthews
I was involved in the original case, and was approached to comment here.

I think it should be recognised that in all related matter there is a basic issue with Third-party sources: it should be applied rigorously to all material in Wikipedia associated with Professor Hewitt's work. I quite realise that page is an essay, not a guideline. The formulation that sources should be "entirely independent of the subject being covered" is key, however.

What we have seen in the past has been an undermining of the encyclopedic principle that we cover academic matters by compiling reference material. ArbCom should support the efforts of those who wish to see this general area of computer science covered neutrally, with no undue emphasis on one school of thought.

My opinions here are strongly held. I'd be happy to comment privately to ArbCom on my grounds for believing this area of editing is worth their close attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wvbailey
Per Carl Hewitt's statement above, to quote: "There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness. Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging." I see no evidence that Hewitt understands the principle that an article is no place to push one's POV, and a talk page is not the place for discussions of an "ongoing academic controversy" and self-advertising (e.g. announcing papers etc, see Archive 9 of the article) but rather for concrete suggestions, and discussions of those suggestions, about how to improve the article. BillWvbailey (talk)

Statement by EdJohnston
This is an appeal by an editor who has been sanctioned in the past and whose willingness to change their approach to Wikipedia is not in evidence. The statements offered in this appeal contain enough internal contradictions to make a reviewer very dubious. Judging from the edits by Special:Contributions/50.0.72.133 at VPM he is engaged in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry even now. This appears to rule out using the provisions of WP:OFFER for another six months. He appears to think that, if his students improve the articles instead of him, he avoids the problem of COI editing. Of course that looks like meatpuppetry to us, and it is hard for anyone to tell the difference. Also the students have no concept of using reliable third-party sources to document the various breakthroughs that are claimed, for example a solution to Russell's paradox. (See the above comment by User:Charles Matthews). Per User:Wvbailey it is unlikely that our article on Gödels incompleteness theorem is in urgent need of expansion to include Hewitt's treatment of the matter. If the sanctions on Hewitt are loosened we might have to fend off Hewitt's attention to the article on Gödel's theorem. In the linked discussion someone was insistent that we link to a preprint of Hewitt's on the arXiv, not a reliable source and self-published so far as Hewitt is concerned. Do we want to unleash someone who thinks that his own work is a top-quality source to use in our articles on famous problems? If Arbcom lets this appeal expire with no action then they won't have foreclosed addressing the matter at AE or ANI, though I wouldn't be optimistic there either. For more background see
 * Carl Hewitt's 2015 letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and
 * The March 2016 thread at VPM. – EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2016 (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.

Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes

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


 * Fixed notification diff for CBM. Amortias (T)(C) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleaned/formatted request. Please edit Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment with information about your request or it may be summarily rejected by the Committee.  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It looks to me that User:CarlHewitt is blocked from editing for sockpuppetry not as an arbitration enforcement action or by the Committee but normal administrative enforcement. If that's the case then the block needs to appealed on User talk:CarlHewitt, or if access to that account has been lost, on User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt - see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I am not willing to consider amending the case until Professor Hewitt has returned to active editing using an account. Given that the block is not under the control of ArbCom (it wasn't arbitration enforcement or a Committee decision) I'd rather let the community handle this first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In a sense yes . They weren't actually blocked as an arb enforcement action. But I see your point regarding the reason for the block. My concern here is that this block can be overturned by any admin so it's not exactly within our jurisdiction. Likewise (historically) ArbCom will generally only overturn arb enforcement actions when there are serious process issues involved (rather than standard appeals). I'd be more willing to see this go to another venue (AE/AN/user talk page) to appeal the block and continue with the current sanctions, plus any other sanctions admins dealing with the unblock see fit. However given the historical changes both to practice and terminology I'm willing (if my colleagues would like to) handle this here with amendments to the case and a possible unblock (but I'd like 's opinion as the blocking admin too). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to treat this as effectively an AE appeal, assuming my colleagues agree. To me the key question, regardless of paperwork matters, is whether others in the topic area agree that this is the best path forward to minimize disruption, so I would like to see further feedback about that. If so, I'd suggest restrictions along the lines of: 1) restricted to a single account only (I don't much care which one); 2) absolutely no editing logged out; 3) restricted to editing only article talk pages, user talk pages, his own userspace, and project discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I noticed this IP edit - whether this is you or an associate or simply a passerby, it's important to point out that the approach being proposed here specifies no editing logged out. It would be helpful if you could clarify if you would accept and abide by that restriction. (Also, please make your comments in your own section here, even if they are responses to others.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion has gotten a bit scattered since last I looked. This case, and this block, are very old; I suggested treating this current request as essentially an appeal of an arbitration enforcement action. We're already in the middle of it, so blocking the new account and telling Carl Hewitt to appeal via the old one doesn't seem like a good use of time. We're also not really trying to work out whether he "deserves" an unblock by whether or not he's jumped through this or that hoop, but whether there would be less disruption in the topic area if he were permitted to edit with restrictions. However,, the continued arguing and tendentious behavior here isn't helping matters. In order for this to work, you need to be able to follow very specific restrictions, including no editing logged out (your opinions of using IP addresses as identifiers are not relevant), and no making personal attacks (your opinions of whether they're justified are also not relevant). If you are not willing or able to follow those rules, there's nothing more for us to do here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This has gone on long enough, time to try something different. There is a lot of bad behavior in the history of the article, but talk pages should be a space for the subjects of articles to address article content, just like we allow any corporation in the world to request changes to their articles on talk pages.  I endorse Opabinia regalis' suggestions, with two additional restrictions:
 * A prohibition on professor Hewitt from making unsubstantiated personal allegations regarding other editors.  He's already made one on this page, and while we want him to be able to address his concerns, we don't want the talk page to become a space for fights regarding old grudges.  He can bring his complaints to WP:AE or to the Committee.
 * A 500/30 restriction on Carl Hewitt, Actor model, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems to keep away the hordes of disruptive anonymous editors.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * I oppose extending 500/30 ever farther than we already have --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gamaliel about a solution, and think User:Prof. Carl Hewitt needs to be blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We've never in any context found an truly effective  way to deal with sockpuppets who cannot be clearly identified. 500/30 might be a practical approach   in such some case, including here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again has used this space to level unsubstantiated accusations against an editor.  I am concerned that this behavior will continue should we lift his restrictions.  Professor Hewitt, I understand that you feel aggrieved after years of conflict, but this is the sort of inappropriate behavior which leads to bans on editing.  If you are unable to understand this and act accordingly, we will be unable to lift those restrictions.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think that Prof. Hewiit's voluntarily rewriting his statements to remove personal jabs is a good sign. I think we should consider some probationary lifting of the restrictions, if only due to the length of this conflict.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that since he was never unblocked from his main account, this new account is block evasion and should be blocked as well, pending a successful appeal. Given the history of sockpuppetry, and the comments alluded to by Gamaliel above, I don't see a successful appeal happening any time soon. At best a successful appeal would require being restricted to talk pages on subjects of which he has a COI. I am hesitant to support imposing 500/30, except when absolutely necessary, however given the narrow scope of this it is something worth considering. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * your point about not having gone through the correct hoops to request unblocking is well noted, and I have no issue with treating this as both a request for amendment and an unblock request, however at the time of my writing, I didn't read anything that would convince me to support unblocking. That said, it has been modified significantly, which is good. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We haven't yet heard from about the suggested restrictions. He's still editing here (although not in his own section) arguing that a book of his should be used. He also asked another editor to comment here but I doubt that he understands how we feel about canvassing. I'm with Kelapstick on having a pessimistic outlook, but he did say at the Village Pump " I will only edit talk pages on articles in which I have a personal involvement." I've got nothing more to add until he responds to our discussion.  Doug Weller  talk 12:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to support loosening any restrictions. Professor Hewitt can appeal his block when he has demonstrated an understanding of the issues he's caused, and when he has stopped socking for a substantial length of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with GorillaWarfare. No relaxation of restrictions and the socking must stop. Doug Weller  talk 13:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like for Hewitt to be unblocked and contribute to articles, via the talk pages or otherwise, but I'm very skeptical of someone (with more experience than me) saying things like "For academics, Wikipedia works best if articles are as accurate as possible given the limitations of academic publications"--this only confirms the skepticism by Ruud, above. In addition, we rarely (ever?) unban without some kind of allocution, and that's totally missing here. The letter to the WMF is an accusation at various people, and the socking isn't even addressed. I can't even tell if Hewitt is actively following this discussion on which we have spent so much time, off- and on-wiki. Having said that, I think that the motion is a step forward, and we all owe Carl (the CBM one) for helping to get this ball rolling; it's just hard for me to support a motion that loosens the restrictions on an editor who gives no indication whatsoever that they ever did anything to deserve a ban and seems to continue to deflect. It would be good for Prof. Hewitt to address the substance of this new motion. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions


In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.

Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:

1. He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.

2. He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.

3. He is permitted to edit only the following: 1. article talk pages

2. user talk pages

3. his own userspace

4. project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.

4. He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.

5. He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors.

Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.

Enacted - Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It's been long enough that this seems the most prudent option rather than continue to have Prof. Hewitt blocked. While I am little uncomfortable in unblocking when that block doesn't exactly and technically meet our (new) jurisdiction I'm willing to IAR given that the reason for the block is strongly related to the case and that the blocking admin is mostly inactive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've added the last sentence to the last paragraph for clarity, feel free to revert or edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Enough time has passed that it is time to try a different approach to resolving this issue.  Hewitt appears to be sincere in his desire to work within our policies, so we should allow him to do so.  If he does not comply with policies once he is allowed to edit, we can reassess the situation at that point.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Gamaliel.  It's easy enough to re-block if the old problems recur. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Kirill. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Happy to give a try. Will be sanctioned if problems recur I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, given the ROPE. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Casliber. Keilana (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) A reblock would be easy, let's do this now.  Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The socking nust utterly cease for a good long time. I will not support any unblock at this time. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The path to an unblock and to looser restrictions is through understanding what went wrong, and stopping with the sockpuppetry. We don't unblock people just because they've socked and caused enough trouble. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) I have to agree with EdJohnston and my colleagues above. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Courcelles and GW --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain

Amendment request: Infoboxes (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review
 * Suspend all remedies concerning Andy (Pigsonthewing), original and after review, as no longer needed to prevent "disruption".

Statement by Gerda Arendt
Today is Bach's birthday. Three years ago I suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, as some may still remember. I believe that the personal restrictions and remedies for Andy (Pigsonthewing) don't serve a purpose. He has not commented in any recent infobox discussion (and there have not been many). The suspension could happen immediately or on parole.

We remember with thanks Viva-Verdi, who added infoboxes to all operas by Giuseppe Verdi - one of the areas of conflict in the 2013 infoboxes case -, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion style: I met Andy in the discussion about Samuel Barber. I was on the other side back in 2012, but liked his style, with a grain of humour ("Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person..."). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When I voted, I chose candidates who I thought would make arbitration simpler. I thank the committee for not accepting any full case in 2016, but finding other solutions. It wasn't Andy who wants the sanctions lifted, - he may have forgotten about them. I think they serve no purpose, and will try to explain in a simple example. Andy created an article on a classical composer which is now a featured article. I conclude that there is no infobox conflict. If there is no conflict, we - the members of the community - don't need to keep one person restricted. Can we keep this simple, for a change? I like the approach of DGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to Francis: As not every arbitrator checks background and history of a discussion, a few diffs. When Pierre Boulez died, I added a short infobox holding what was so far hidden as Persondata but is deprecated, after the model of Beethoven where it . I call such a short thing because the term infobox is so hated, - Brianboulton called it  when he added one to a FA in 2013. It was expanded by Giantsnowman. It was reverted by Jerome Kohl. I went to the talk page, header: . - Back to our context: none of it is relevant to this clarification, because Andy appeared in none of these discussions, as I said in the opening. - Imagine for a moment that the little box had stayed in place, without any following discussion: too good to be true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 please present that reason: kindly give one example of an edit by Andy in an infobox discussion of the past three years that would have warranted "ban ... from further participation in that discussion". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yesterday was Busoni's 150th birthday. A discussion (partly marked ) relevant to our topic is here, related to the research section in the 1 April Signpost, "... how readers read articles", which I think should be recommended if not even required reading for all us editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Repeating: would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 kindly present one example from the last three years where they found Andy "disruptive" enough to justify a ban from a discussion? Hoping for input especially from Opabinia regalis, Callannecc, kelapstick, Courcelles, Drmies, Guerillero, Gamaliel. In my unlimited belief in good faith, I trust that we editors could tell Andy when we find him "disruptive" without admin help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reworded: would those who see a reason to keep 2.1 or can't decide kindly present one example from the last three years in an infobox-yes-or-no discussion (not "religion in infoboxes" which was not the scope of the case, nor other discussions) where they found Andy "disruptive" enough to justify a ban from a discussion? Hoping for input from Courcelles, Guerillero, Callannecc, Salvio guiliano and DeltaQuad. Perhaps start looking at Bach. (We lost GFHandel over that discussion, whose is sadly missed since 23 March 2013, for example :"Perhaps it's the enlightened part of the world in which I live, but I find (what amounts to) an argument that new editors (and especially women) are less likely to be able to scroll past a well-structured listing of infobox parameter=value pairs (all in clear English) to be, frankly demeaning.") - In my unlimited belief in good faith, I trust that we editors could tell Andy when we find him "disruptive" without admin help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After you looked at the 2013 Bach discussion (did you see battleground?), you can compare 2016 Peter Maxwell Davies, - you may have seen him pictured on the Main page. I see respectful discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Pigsonthewing

 * Since you ask: it would beggar belief for anyone to suggest I would want, or would ever have wanted, otherwise. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "the answer may be "I want them removed entirely"; my comment, above, applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Andy can be maddeningly persistent on the tiniest of things, but this restriction has outlived its usefulness. His work as Wikipedia-In-Residence makes tiptoeing round the infobox issue an obvious problem. I'd support replacement with some kind of restriction that allows him to add and edit infoboxes, but not to argue about them. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Collect's point I think addresses the core problem here, pace Rschen. Jbhunley also nails it. Andy has boundless energy, a remarkable commitment to the project, and exhibits good humour and good faith. He is, in short, a thoroughly decent bloke as well as being a prolific editor and ambassador for the project. However, he gets bees in his bonnet, as I think he would probably acknowledge. That's the source of all the problems. Most of what he does is uncontroversial and good, the problems occur only when something he sees as obvious - almost always in metadata curation, not content - is disputed or questioned by others. A restriction on argument will solve the problem, a restriction on any addition or discussion of infoboxen is more than is required given that in most cases proposals for or addition of infoboxes are simply not controversial. Most people actually don't care overmuch one way or the other. Obviously a targeted rampage of infobox additions would be a problem, but if Andy is editing an article - an eventuality that is always, IMO, a good thing for the project, given his attention to sources - I really don't see why adding an infobox would be an intolerable act. And if it's reverted then fine, he needs to walk away, and we can watch and help make sure he does that. Obviously if any of his long-term adversaries were to stalk him reverting additions then we'd pick that up as well. He has friends who will give him counsel, I really do think we should reduce the restrictions For Great Justice. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Sanctions should have an expiry date. I haven't seen anything that indicates Andy cannot operate without sanctions. Lifting the sanctions then, is a next logical step. As well, we cannot conflate an editing/discussion style with sanctionable behavior. One is a emotional response to something we don't like; while a sanction is specifically a perceived transgression of our policies and guidelines. They are very different and should be dealt with as such. If we started sanctioning editors because  we don't like their discussion style, we could become very short of editors in a hurry. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC))

With respect to the arbs who have a difficult job in these arbitrations. I think it is very clear what Andy will do in a hot topic area. We've had a year to see how he behaves, and once again there are no diffs or behaviours that indicate he will not behave in an appropriate way. I am a little disturbed by these statements, "The fact that some editors so vocally object to the idea of this basic step is a big red flag to me, and it makes me wonder why editors do not want him to do it" and "when someone won't speak on their own behalf, and all their friends are really really angry at you for wanting to speak to him about it, that is a clear indication that something may be wrong with the situation"

Andy spoke in his own way. He is an editor of few words. Most of all, arbs are meant to be neutral and should not be dividing the speakers here as friends or foe of anyone. This is an assumption and is divisive in an arbitration. Further, some editors may be angry, but again that is assumptive and further should have nothing to do with the outcomes here. It is wholly unfair to Andy to suggest that the actions of those commenting here points to something else beyond this arbitration, in reference to Andy's behaviour, as if there is some mysterious hidden agenda. Please keep this simple and look at either the behaviour or the diffs of behaviour. If there are no transgressions how in the world can sanctions not be lifted. WP is not punitive. Arbs are mediators and should be, in my mind, looking for ways to maintain productivity in WP's editors, and thank heaven, this is not AN and should not resemble AN in any way. Please keep this simple and so fair. Again, with all respect, but felt I should speak to these issues.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Montanabw
Time for these restrictions to go; they should expire, and the reality is that we have an editor who has extensive experience and knowledge being subjected to a set of rules suitable for 5 year olds. I favor the proposal. Montanabw (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
Given this discussion on Wikidata, where Pigsonthewing had his property creation rights revoked a few days ago, I do not see a good reason why the sanctions should be lifted, specifically the one about disrupting discussions. --Rschen7754 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
If I had to pick a specific problem with Andy Mabbett, it would be that he doesn't do a great job of explaining himself, particularly when he thinks he's right. But that's hardly crime of the century, is it? Drop his restriction back to parole, infoboxes are not the product of Satan's rear end and do serve a legitimate purpose in the right context. Then again, I find WikiData as exciting as watching grass grow, so don't take my view as gospel or anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley
Based on their need to respond to nearly every comment which is counter to their view in this VPP discussion about the   infobox parameter I can see how they could rapidly become disruptive in an infobox discussion. Because of that remedy 4.3.2 should stay in place. Remedy 4.3.1, the wholesale inability to add infoboxes, should be relaxed or removed but 4.3.2 is needed to rapidly curtail disruption which may occur as a result. J bh Talk  14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The terse statement from Andy seems more than sufficient to accept that he would like restrictions in this area lifted. I have no idea what could be more "substantive" than his clear statement, alas. I suggest he is cognizant of the desirability of avoiding confrontations regarding actual existence of infoboxen (Wagnerian declension of the word), but all ArbCom needs do is by motion state "the restrictions are lifted, but all involved shall be cognizant and edit regarding infoboxes in accord with such cognizance." Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re infoboxes)
The arbitration committee's handling of the infoboxes saga has to date been a case study in how not to resolve a dispute. The problem is not and has never been infoboxes themselves, it has been the behaviour of those with a grudge against them and the behaviour of a few supporters in reaction to that. The way forward at this point is to remove all restrictions on Andy's creating and editing infoboxes - they have long passed any usefulness they ever had. If you feel the need for a staged withdrawal of restrictions, then a 0 or 1 revert limit for infoboxes would be fine by me.

Others have mentioned his more general behaviour here and on Wikidata (note: I am a participant in the ongoing dispute there). I would suggest that the best way forward with this would be to craft a parole-type restriction that applies only to Andy's contribution to discussions and apply that across the project, replacing all the other existing restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the point of a statement is so that the person concerned can indicate that they do want the clarification or amendment proposed, and give any further information or points of view they feel relevant. Andy has made it perfectly clear that he does want the clarification and that he doesn't feel the need to say more than others have already said. I know how much arbitrators have to read, and you should be encouraging such brevity!
 * Most importantly though, you should not be basing support or opposition on the basis of something that is factually incorrect - it just brings arbcom into disrepute and casts doubt on whether you have actually read the evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * please could your opposition - I see nothing in the evidence that indicates why the restrictions are still necessary, but without knowing what you are seeing it is impossible for Andy or anyone else to know what behaviour is required to have the restrictions removed at some future time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Please bear with me on a few points: Despite the commendable optimism by others in this section, I'd still rather try to find ways the OP would be less enabled to discuss infobox matters ad infinitum. Andy's discussion style is clear from their comments above: Andy doesn't discuss, they just posit "The Truth". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers (8 February 2016 – 13 March 2016, thus far):
 * I found this discussion quite disheartening, at least exhausting, especially near the end. A problem seems to be that for some editors it appears difficult to accept or understand that if particular single-editor-oriented remedies of the infoboxes ArbCom case are lifted that the general ones, like "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" remain in effect, whatever side you're on. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that respect is particularly persistent, so I'm a bit concerned the ArbCom may give a wrong signal here. The OP's formulation here: "Suspend all remedies concerning Andy..." (emphasis added) kind of confirms that fear... Literally, what the OP is asking is that Andy would be the only Wikipedia editor not subject to the general remedies of the infobox ArbCom case, unless the OP is already implying that those general remedies are not applicable to Andy. Clearly the OP thinks that if there are particular single-editor-oriented remedies in an ArbCom case, that the editors thus named need not concern themselves with the general remedies, applicable to all editors. That's what the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers discussion was about for a large part.
 * One contributor to the discussion implied infoboxes are "being voted down" more often lately (diff 1). I wouldn't know, I don't follow these issues that close. Seems like this amendment request might serve in getting more weight in discussions on individual infoboxes. I don't want to say that is a good thing or a bad thing: maybe some balance needs to be restored. The point is: we'll have plenty more editor time going to discussions about infoboxes, instead of using that time to write an encyclopedia.
 * Frivolously bringing up infoboxes in other discussions:
 * Diff 2, getting a clear reply infoboxes are unrelated to the issue being discussed: diff 3
 * Still not letting infoboxes go in another discussion on the same aspect of the same article.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (infoboxes)

 * 1) There is probably little value in perpetuating these remedies.
 * 2) Lifting them, or some of them, without any input from the sanctioned party is a Good Thing.  If they are no longer needed (or indeed were never needed) they should go.  The sanctioned party can rarely change anyone's mind over this (Mandy Rice Davies applies), if third parties present a compelling case that should be sufficient.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

Statement by SMcCandlish
I argue aplenty with Andy (not always :-) yet entirely support the dropping of this sanction. It's purely punitive at this point. I agree with the above assessments by others that previous ArbComs approached the entire infoboxes situation wrongheadedly. This is an opportunity to undo some of the resulting mess. I also agree that unusual bans of this sort should have reasonable time limits by default.

Statement by Mrjulesd
Well I have to agree with numerous statements of support, these restrictions appear to no longer serve any useful purpose. A year is far long enough a time for hot heads to cool and for personal reflection. These infobox wars are unfortunate, but when it comes down to it they are merely content disputes, and less deserving of ArbCom's attention. And there has never been anything other than good faith assumed with Pigsonthewing's actions in these matters. Also Pigsonthewing's considerable contributions to the project should also be considered. Although I have not partaken in these, I really feel that trouts for misguided editors who unilaterally remove long standing infoboxes, in the face of disagreement, is more appropriate than long standing restrictions.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
I really wish arbs would engage in facts. Support or oppose, to say "Due to the absence of a statement." is utter nonsense. It is obvious that Andy made a statement. It is also obvious (to anyone competent in the English language) that he does not want these restrictions. Say "he hasn't bowed down enough and shown proper contrition to 'teh authoratah', say nothing at all, hell - say "I just don't like the guy"; but engaging in outright lies sheds poor light on the entire group. Perhaps WP:CIR isn't a requirement for Arbcom, but it should be. — Ched :  ?  22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * noting for the record: this was the actual state of the page when I made my comments above. As some items have been removed/rewritten without notice of the rewrite, I thought that rather than the standard "strike-through", I prefer to add a note.  I won't bother debating the merits of the word "substantial".  As to the integrity and ethics on display, that is for others to determine. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for that. At this point I would say that if you have a concern about something you feel has not been clarified, perhaps asking straightforward questions might help in finding the answers you seek.  Provide a link (or links) to something you feel that illustrates a shortcoming that Andy has displayed which the restriction curtails.  Then ask Andy directly if he maintains that his actions are justified and if he intends to continue said behavior.  My understanding is that we're all adults here; so I see no need for an "educational" finger wagging and fishing for "what. did. you. do.?" style of discussion. Especially if you feel that the original case was proper in its results. — Ched :  ?  14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
"Due to the absence of a statement." - there is not just one statement by Andy, but two. The meaning is crystal-clear, so what more do you want? Requiring some sort of ritual abasement is beneath the dignity of the ArbCom (or so I thought). Andy has not breached the sanctions since their implementation; they served no good purpose then and still don't. I've advised him multiple times privately to step away from disputes – and to his credit he has always done so. I'll advise him publicly now not to respond further to this sort of baiting. --RexxS (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . No, you're quite wrong. As someone who's spent a lifetime in education, I can assure you that the major indicators of future behaviour are past and current behaviour. Andy is a trusted advocate for Wikipedia and its sister projects. He is currently Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID and at TED, and an editor with over 160,000 contributions over 12 years, not some drive-by vandal. His contribution history for the last couple of years is easy to find for anybody who wants to see how he's been behaving - and the answer is overwhelmingly and uncontroversially creating content, not wasting time at these drama boards. Frankly, if you think extracting meaningless promises from people is preferable to examining someone's actual behaviour, you need to get out of the dispute resolution business.
 * You think Andy should: (1) Admit he knows what they did was wrong and why; and (2) pledge not to do it again in future. So you tell us all just what Andy did wrong and show us some diffs of that. Write down just what he should be saying, and prove that you have understood what the infobox case was about if you're going to have the nerve to pontificate. For ArbCom to take sides in a content dispute was a travesty of fairness and digging in their heels now, when they could simply let it go without loss of face, isn't going to rectify that. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Andy's record on Wikipedia is no guarantee of "what will happen in a hot button topic area when those specific restrictions are lifted". But unfortunately, a statement, no matter how "substantial" it may be, is even less of an indication. At least an examination of Andy's record gives you some idea. I assure you that I'm fully aware of his intentions: to do his best to improve this encyclopedia that we're all so dedicated to. The truth is, of course, that Andy has an infuriating habit of replying almost cryptically at times, and that leads to extended debates whenever he comes up against another editor who feels they really, really have to take him to task over it. I could give you a list of those editors if you wanted. Just take a look at the debate Courcelles refers to for a classic case. The thing is that we ought not to sanction editors just because they annoy us. It's abusive, and admins - let alone ArbCom - need to understand when a sanction is being applied punitively. The purpose of the original sanctions was, allegedly, to cut the Gordian knot of disputes between two camps by removing one camp from the arena, and I could live with that. If it's now being touted as a mechanism to prevent some vague threat of general disruption in future, then I think I'm entitled to ask when that change was made, and who agreed to it. I also would observe that attempting to treat adults as if they were children by demanding contrition or guarantees of future conduct has a very poor track record on Wikipedia. It's time to drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
RexxS (and others), when a sanction is lifted (rather than expired) it almost always requires a statement consisting of 1. Admission the subject knows what they did was wrong and why, 2. A pledge not to do it again in future. This isnt some arcane/obscure arbcom requirement, this is basic standard practice at AN for community-imposed sanctions as well. So far Andy's 'statement' above consists of 'I would like the restrictions lifted'. Well quite. I am pretty sure he would. Which wouldnt be sufficient *anywhere* to get a sanction for behaviour lifted. So Gamaliel's objection is quite reasonable. People have had restriction appeals denied at AN for not agreeing with the orginal sanction, even if they agreed not to do the same actions again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this I expect it is because they dont think the restrictions were warranted in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Izkala
I see that two arbitrators have so far not given us a reason for opposing. Do these two arbitrators need to have the concept of accountability explained to them? Please let me know; I'll be happy to oblige. Izkala (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2016 (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.

Infoboxes: Clerk notes

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


 * Clerk note: The clerks have been instructed not to enact motion 1 until motion 2 is either passing or failing. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would generally encourage these kinds of requests be filed by the person affected by the remedy, but in lieu of that, I'll at least wait to opine until Pigsonthewing leaves a statement here indicating he would actually like these remedies lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in cases like this it's appropriate to ensure that the person affected by the remedy actually wants the sanctions to be lifted. Now that we've done so, I think that's sufficient—there are no minimum length requirements for statements, and I personally find an editor's recent behavior to be a better predictor of their future behavior than whether or not they include enough platitudes in an ARCA request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline absent a substantive statement from the editor in question. Personally, I won't take any step involving the bizarrely apoplectic infobox wars without being extremely thorough.  While I am impressed by the statements of support by numerous other editors, I think a statement from the editor himself is required before we can consider any modification, however minor or appropriate it may or may not be.  Strike my vote if a statement is posted.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled that in only a few hours I've already received two objections to the idea that someone seeking having their sanctions removed should make a substantive statement about why they should be lifted and what they would do following their removal. This is standard procedure.  Requests and appeals accompanied without such statements are routinely rejected by the community and the Committee.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire for anyone to engage in "ritual abasement". No apology is needed, no remorse need be shown. Just something that says "this is what I'm going to do." A statement can be made privately, and it should be part of our due diligence as it's a major way of gauging the future behavior of an editor. The fact that some editors so vocally object to the idea of this basic step is a big red flag to me, and it makes me wonder why editors do not want him to do it. Gamaliel ( talk ) 12:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect I'll be in the minority on this one, but I'd be willing to revise these. We do, however, need some further input from ; what would be useful is a clear statement of how, specifically, he would like to see the restrictions modified - the answer may be "I want them removed entirely", but let's try to find something that might actually get consensus in favor. From the comments above it sounds like we could consider modifying remedy 1.1 to allow adding an infobox but restrict reverting if it is removed, or to allow adding an infobox when it arises specifically in the course of WiR/outreach activities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I may have underestimated you guys ;) Isn't there something about forgiving past sins going on today? I agree with Kelapstick on 1 and 3; I think we should hear from Andy before deciding on 2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tentatively support The simplest thing would just be a trial, making it clear that the sanction will be reimposed if problems resume. I would have been willing to consider this whether or not the individual sanctioned  had asked for it; there are     imaginable situations where a person might not want their sanctions changed or even brought up again for discussion, but the actual request here does not seem to fall in that category.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to consider revising the restriction (whether Opabinia's suggestion or suspending it for a while), however before doing that I'd like some further input from about what where he sees this going (removing it entirely doesn't look like it'll get consensus) and that he is cognisant of the past issues and how he intends to avoid them (which may be where a compromise restriction comes from). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd likely support something along the lines of removing review remedy 1.1 (plus 3 as it'll be moot) and keeping 2.1, but adding a restriction (possibly suspended) which prohibits Andy from re-adding an infobox to an article if one has been removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with removing 1.1 and 3. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think 1.1 can go (which renders 3 meaningless, of course), but that remedy 2.1 should stay. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not formally voting on this, but it seems to me that 2.1 is just what any admin can do anyway.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For now, I'm with Courcelles--1.1 and 3 can go, 2.1 cannot, not yet. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , during the religion parameter discussion(s) there was plenty of heated stuff from many sides. But I don't think I have to cite a punishment handed out for violating 2.1 to prove it should remain; rather, that there have been no infractions serious enough to warrant a punishment may well be an indication that it works. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Andy has an admirable record on Wikipedia. So do many people who have come before the committee.  That admirable record does not necessarily indicate what will happen in a hot button topic area when those specific restrictions are lifted.  As someone who's spent (an admittedly shorter) lifetime in education, when someone won't speak on their own behalf, and all their friends are really really angry at you for wanting to speak to him about it, that is a clear indication that something may be wrong with the situation.  I'd like to hear from Andy.   If he doesn't want to comment here for whatever reason, I'd like to know why without the filters of other editors who may or may not be aware of Andy's motivations.  We can chat privately without a formal statement.   He can say "I think these restrictions are bollocks and so are you" and I won't hold that against him.   The idea that some sort of ritual is needed is, frankly, bollocks.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I have replaced my original comment with a strikethough. I did not do so initially because I thought my clarification was uncontroversial and did not represent any change in position, as it was consistent with what I've been saying throughout this discussion. I added the strikethrough following your suggestion in the interests of complete transparency and to avoid any possibility of insinuation by those editors who do not want to assume good faith. I'm sure we both have similar sentiments about how important both values are to Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk ) 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Infoboxes 1


In the 2013 Infoboxes case, User:Pigsonthewing was subject to editing restrictions which were subsequently revised in a case review in March 2015. With this motion, remedies 1.1 and 3 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review are rescinded. Pigsonthewing is cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Me too. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) kelapstick(bainuu) 20:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) While I am hesitant to support this in the absence of a substantial statement and the precedent that creates, I'm going to support anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) By email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Due to the absence of a statement.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)  Later clarification of "substantial" added before the word "statement" to describe what has consistently been my position throughout this discussion: As I wrote elsewhere in March: "The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step."   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)  Stricken by email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Keilana (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Recused:
 * 1)  DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Infoboxes 2


With this motion, remedy 2 of the 2015 Infoboxes Review is rescinded.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. Including this as a separate motion at the request of other arbs. I was initially hesitant about this one, because (sorry Andy, but it's true) I had a discussion or two in mind where I found his contributions abrasive. But that's not really a fair judgment: no one at the time, including me, felt that actually using the provision of remedy 2 was necessary; it wasn't at the point where there was actual disruption. In fact, no one has felt so inspired for over a year, as evidenced by the empty enforcement log for the infoboxes review. I was able to find only one instance where it was used, documented here; in that case the admin who imposed the restriction quickly retracted it after consensus held that it was not an appropriate use. Although I've been around at TfD less lately, working as an admin there for quite a while last year gave me plenty of exposure to Andy's discussion style; "brusque" might be accurate, but disruptive to the point of requiring special enforcement provisions, not in my experience. If over a year without crossing the line defined by this remedy isn't good enough to get rid of it, he might well wonder what would be. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) While I maintain that an absence of sanctions is not at all evidence that they were not needed to begin with, I consider myself swayed by Opaginia regalis and others. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) While I do believe there is a degree of merit to retaining this, as DGG says above, this can by and large be done by any administrator anyway, without requiring a formal remedy. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) If the remedy isn't being used, then there's little value to keeping it in place. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) By email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Marginally but essentially per Kelapstick Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Due to the absence of a statement.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)   Later clarification of "substantial" added before the word "statement" to describe what has consistently been my position throughout this discussion: As I wrote elsewhere in March: "The statement is one of the main ways we have to judge the future behavior of an editor. It would be irresponsible of me to consider lifting the sanctions in such a battleground area without this basic step."   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)  Stricken by email: arbitrator . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I've seen at least a couple times this should have been invoked (the recent discussion about removing the religion parameter from an infobox comes to mind), so I'm not only against removing this, but would encourage greater use of it. Courcelles (talk)
 * 2) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Courcelles here, I'm not convinced that removing this restriction is an entirely positive outcome especially given the absence of discretionary sanctions and a statement from Andy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the point that any admin can do it. I disagree to an extent, while they can say that there's no policy basis for the threat, there have been (negative) discussions about admins doing it in the past, it requires the admin who said it to act on it (no policy basis means others aren't likely to), and it doesn't have the protection of an AE block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) I can't find myself on either side of this one, i'm split down the middle. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * can see both sides. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Keilana (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Recused:
 * 1) DGG DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Oversight blocks (May 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NE Ent at 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=542990142#Oversight-related_blocks

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 NE Ent
The motion clarifies an admin should not reverse a block designated oversight without consulting with an oversighter, but the Wikipedia policy says to contact the committee mailing list, not the oversighter mailing list. team Please clarify the proper contact.
 * Gorilla Warfare, your point is well taken, but perhaps reflects a poor assumption / phrasing on my part rather than the essence of the question; by design "Oversight" is easy to contact, as indicated by the prominent on the Oversight page; the question is does the committee want be involved with Oversight block discussions from the get go, or should the first step be contacting the oversight functionaries team? NE Ent 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's actually an issue with the wording of that 2010 Gorilla Warfare linked, the phrasing the "block has been made in error" falsely implies  unblocking means the intial block was an error -- to the contrary, unblocking simply means a block is no longer necessary to protect the encyclopedia, not that the initial block was incorrect. My $0.0002 is that Courcelle's position is preferable, but either solution is workable, as long it is clear what the policy is. NE Ent 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that, per the 2010 arbcom motion, arbcom consent is not required to unblock (only input from an oversighter); so when an oversighter posts "appeals must be directed to arbcom" it looks like a power-grab. NE Ent 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Committee: this is getting surreal; it's perfectly fine to either require another oversighter input or require arbcom consent; the problem is this absurb status quo, where a blocking oversighter admin posts a notice like: where "this announcement" actually says Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; NE Ent 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Observation: It is written nowhere arbcom shall only use existing resources to resolve issues; if the best answer is a oversighters only, non-archived or time limited archive, why not simply decide what ya want and have a such a list created? NE Ent 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Snowolf
Please take my $0.02 for what they're worth as I have not been that active as an Oversighter lately. I think that Oversight block are fairly rare and as such the even rarer occurrence of an appeal can safely be handled by the Arbitration Committee, whose members can easily reach out to the Oversight team for input if appropriate.  Snowolf How can I help? 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)
As a non-arbitrator oversighter and former arbitrator, I think the best way forward is as Courcelles suggests. The Committee doesn't need the workload of every appeal, and the functionaries-l list is well set-up and generally sufficiently responsive to be able to handle these requests in the first instance.

As an aside, the wording quoted by Gorilla Warfare below still refers to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, which was dissolved last year. Changing it is not urgent, as it just refers to referring something to BASC if that is the most appropriate action (it simply will never be such), but it is something to bear in mind for when it does get revised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

it is entirely possible to discuss non-public information without repeating or quoting any non-public information. Indeed in my experience of functionaries-l this is exactly what happens, oversighters will say that e.g. user:example was sexually harassing user:example2 at $page, or ask for opinions regarding a specific OTRS ticket. In the same way checkusers give links to the CU wiki. If you have access to the non-public information, you can go and look at it for yourself if you need to. If you don't have the necessary access then you can't see it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be worth including language that these blocks are still appealable and queryable to the blocking administrator (as anyone making a CU or OS block will be a holder of the relevant permission). Bringing discussion to the wider body of functionaries should be done as the step after that if either party feels a wider review is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC) resigning after fixing capitalisation of username to generate a ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

in practice I have never encountered any actual issues with not being able to include oversightable information in functionaries-l discussion, and moving to oversight-l is always an option if necessary. I also strongly oppose directing appeals to a non-archiving list in the first instance, and (less strongly) oppose changing the scope of oversight-l to allow it to be archived as we would then require a third list on which oversightable material may be posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NativeForeigner
There are relatively few OS blocks, and most are related to arbcom cases. My intuition is that OS blocks related to arbcom cases or explicitly designated as arbcom only should be reviewed by Arbcom. All other OS blocks should be reviewable by functionaries or OS-l, although which of those (func vs OS vs both) is chosen doesn't seem to be of huge importance to me. NativeForeigner Talk 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
Oversight blocks are rare, especially compared to checkuser blocks (though like buses, their appeals all seem to be coming at once lately), so it's unsurprising and not necessarily a bad thing that we don't have a formal procedure for their appeals. My own opinion is that there's nothing wrong with the current system, and that the functionaries' list is a good venue for appeals. All oversighters and all arbitrators are subscribed to it and it accepts incoming mail from the blocked editor, unlike oversight-l, and input from our checkuser colleagues and the various ex-arbs on functionaries-en can be useful. Of the handful of oversight blocks I've made, most if not all would have bee made by any oversighter—I just happened to be the first oversighter to come across the issue—so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be appealing to me individually.

Everyone on the functionaries' list has been through the same vetting and satisfied the same criteria for access to non-public information (with the exception of a handful of WMF staff, who have been through the WMF's processes). The differences in user rights are largely due to different interests and different levels of technical skill, not checkusers or oversighters being untrustworthy to handle certain things. My understanding is that sensitive information (like checkuser data or suppressed revisions) is not supposed to be posted to functionaries-en because that list is archived, meaning that the data would be retained for longer than it should be (neither oversight-l nor checkuser-l are archived, whereas any subscriber to functionaries-en can read every email sent to the list, back to the day of its creation). HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Avraham
For what it is worth, I agree that there are few OS-specific blocks, and that func-en is an appropriate place to discuss it. Everyone on that list is OS/CU eligible and has been vetted for private information. Oft times the institutional memory contained by members of that list is very helpful when dealing with these issues, as human behavior tends to repeat itself and the more seasoned members may have valuable insight. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Thanks to for opening this ARCA request. Hopefully the matter will get clarified somewhat. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A further comment. I don't really see why it should be an ArbCom block versus an oversight block. If it is an urgent case, there can be a temporary block put by oversight, but a proper ArbCom case should be opened if it is to be an ArbCom block. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See this for background for this ARCA request. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
I was a member of the Arbitration Committee that first approved the concept of an oversighter block. At the time, I believed that it should be a rarely-used but potentially useful tool for addressing very specific problems, i.e., applied only to editors who had repeatedly posted information that easily qualified for oversight, after they had been explicitly warned by an oversighter not to repost. Unfortunately, we on Arbcom didn't go as far as we should have at the time and did not establish the framework for applying such blocks, leaving it to "best judgment". Most of the time, oversighters are probably correct in their assessments, but without even a structure to review these blocks (starting with an email to the oversight or functionaries list announcing that one has been made), it is very difficult to honestly say that all of the oversight blocks are indeed appropriate. I have been quite concerned about the nature and quality of some of the oversight blocks applied; in some cases, a block was probably appropriate but an oversighter block not required (that's the original reason for developing the ability to turn off talk page access of blocked users), and in other cases I'm not even sure a block was called for. I'm definitely concerned that they're over-utilized.

I would like to see *all* oversighter blocks announced to the oversight list (or alternately the functionary list) at the time they are applied, and for *all* oversighter blocks to be reviewed by the appropriate group. The principle on which suppression is utilized is that it is better to suppress and then step things down on review than it is to not suppress and leave potentially problematic posts in full public view; however, all suppression decisions are subject to oversight team review. I don't see why an oversighter block should be treated any differently. I would very much prefer that the oversight mailing list continue to be utilized as a non-archiving list for oversighter discussions, and that we not reinstate community access to the list; the decision to do this was to protect the privacy of the information that is being suppressed. Expanding the function of the list would require that we turn archiving back on, since it would be important to have a "record" of the request; since the functionary list remains an archived list (and in turn doesn't permit revelation of suppressed material or CU results), that would be the best place to send any requests for oversighter block review (or suppression review, for that matter).

Statement by JzG
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the problem here. ArbCom looks to be the most appropriate body to provide independent review and appeal for an oversight block, what problem are we trying to fix? Guy (Help!) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what I see there is a reference (stated in rather hyperbolic terms) to a case that got handled pretty promptly and via an obviously defensible route. I don't think ArbCom necessarily have to codify this. That doesn't stop them doing so I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil
I think it is important that this is clarified so as to eliminate any confusion and establish a clear escalation hierarchy for appeals. As a non-Arb oversighter, my preference would be for it to go to functionaries-l first (if it is possible for this to occur), not for an official "review by the functionaries", but simply so that admins who happen to be oversighters can have a look, as per the usual procedure for all unblocks. If that's unsuccessful, then and only then should it be referred to ArbCom. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754
Is WMF okay with a list like oversight-l being archived? During the setup of wikidata-oversight we were told that such a list should not be archived, so that WMF could not hand information over if it was requested to under a court order. Though OTRS retains the information, so I'm not sure how useful that is, unlike checkuser-l. --Rschen7754 06:33, 19 April 2016 (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.

Oversight blocks: Clerk notes

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



Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I wonder if this was codified this way because there is not a way for non-oversighters to email the entire oversight team. People can submit oversight tickets, which are handled by individual oversighters on OTRS, but the oversight-l mailing list does not accept external mails. Although oversight blocks can be overturned with the consent of a single oversighter, they tend to be issues where feedback from multiple oversighters is valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
 * Direct appeals to ArbCom
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team by instructing blocked users to send an email to the standard oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), with the expectation that any oversighter seeing such a request will begin a discussion on the internal oversight-l mailing list to reach a group decision
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team, opening up the oversight-l email list to outside senders
 * Direct appeals to the oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), where any appeal will be handled by an individual oversighter
 * Direct appeals to the oversight team via the functionaries-en email list (whose members include all current arbitrators, some former arbitrators, users with CheckUser permission, and users with Oversight permission on the English Wikipedia)
 * Before making any decisions, I'd like to get input on this from any non-ArbCom oversighters who have an opinion one way or another. I'll send an email to the oversight list so they're aware of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org (or Special:EmailUser/Oversight) is an OTRS queue, where emails (usually suppression requests) open tickets that are handled by individual oversighters. oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org is a standard mailman mailing list for internal discussion among oversighters; emails from non-oversighters are automatically rejected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that the initial decision regarding checkuser blocks directs all checkuserblock appeals to ArbCom: Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee.  When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted. Our motion on oversight blocks was not as clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with your point about the "block made in error" wording, though I'm not sure it's something we need to formally reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocks with the instructions "appeal only to ArbCom" are already within policy as written, though, in that same 2010 statement: The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.  In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it.  The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block.  Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it satisfy you to add "and this statement" to the OversightBlock template, to clarify that we recognize sometimes issues should go only to the ArbCom? Regardless of whether we decide to clarify the language such that the appeals can go to oversighters (be it the team or individuals), I don't see taking away the ability for blocking admins/functionaries to limit appeals to ArbCom when there are circumstances such as those described in the 2010 statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all the oversighters/functionaries who've weighed in. It seems like directing appeals first to the functionaries-en list is the preferred way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, but I think the first line of appeal for CU/OS blocks should be via email to the functionaries-en list, so there is a second line of appeal to the committee itself. Courcelles (talk)
 * Open to hearing more comments, but on first look I don't see a problem with the effective status quo that appeals can either be directed to oversighters or to arbcom. (I did recently correct an error in the OversightBlock template that made the wording inconsistent, but directing appeals to arbcom has always been an available option.) I do agree with GW that the "appeal to oversighters" option should be refined so that the appeal is handled by the group rather than a single individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To recap: In 2010, the committee passed a motion formally establishing the concept of "checkuser blocks", including some guidance on when to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2013, this was extended to include "oversight blocks". Immediately thereafter, the OversightBlock template was created for this purpose, which has from the first edit provided an option to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2015, BASC was disbanded with the provision that arbcom would continue to hear appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks. At least 12 currently active blocks, some going back to 2014, have the "appeal directly to arbcom" version of the OversightBlock template in the most recent version of the user's talk page. The idea that it is a new "power grab" to direct OS blocks to arbcom is not supported by the evidence. No objections to adding a link to the 2010 motion to the template, and as long as we're here we might as well sort out how to appeal to "oversighters" collectively as opposed to individually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Callanecc on this; it doesn't make sense to direct appeals to a place where their context can't be discussed openly. The more this goes on, the less convinced I am that a separate Official Process is needed for this relatively rare category of appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My preference is that appeals of OS blocks should go to the OS who placed the block, the Oversight team (probably by opening up OS-l to external mail) or to ArbCom. The issue with having appeals directed to functionaries-en is that CU data can't be directly discussed as there are non-CUs on the list, likewise suppressed information can't be discussed there as there are non-OSers on the list. It's also worth noting that CUs or OSers (as can all admins) can direct that individual blocks only be appealed to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The access to nonpublic information policy states that information (ie suppressed information and CU data) can only be disclosed to "other community members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same information, ...". I'd want positive confirmation from the WMF that they consider users who formerly had access to be tools to be "permitted to access the same information" before encouraging it to be discussed on functionaries-l (I definitely don't feel it would meet that requirement). This is especially the case given that the policy also requires that, "When a community member's access to a certain tool is revoked, for any reason, that member must destroy all nonpublic information that they have as a result of that tool", as that seems to indicate that if you can't access the information yourself you shouldn't have access to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's possible, but if it were my appeal being considered I'd like the people discussing to be able to talk about it directly rather than stepping around what I actually said. For example, there could be a situation (with an OS block) where the people discussing it would need to say something like "I took User:Example's comment (tenth word to twenty second word) to mean blah [and not mentioned anything here from the suppressed edit or which would give away its contents] not blah as you suggested" or if, for example, User:Example posted a link and brief synopsis of the linked webpage (such as a blog which outs another editor) the people discussing it couldn't link to the blog, might run into problems quoting from the blog and couldn't refer to or link to other pages on the blog (content of suppressed edit). That makes handling an appeal very difficult. We'd also need to consider who would have a 'vote' in appeals (should users without OS access be able to vote or comment even though they can't know the full story?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc is correct in saying that appeals to the Functionaries mailing list would not be appropriate. I'd prefer the first appeal to be to the blocking Admin. I also would like to hear from more Oversighters before supporting opening up that list. Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with courcelles and disagree with Callan. Functionaries-l is the perfect place for appeals --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If indeed such information can be handled there, it may be. I've posted to the list about this discussion. Doug Weller  talk 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The simplest procedure is for requests to go first to the functionaries list, either directly or via a n individual functionary. As suggested, with the provision that it can be specified in a block that appeals go directly to arb com.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that oversighted information is stored indefinitely by the software why would there need to be a list which doesn't archive? Given the amount of discussion at OS-l which includes suppressed information as well as the suppressed information included in appeals at ArbCom-l I'd say it's fairly regular to refer to it and quote it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why given that OTRS records indefinitely, and suppressed edits are available onwiki (by oversighters) indefinitely. But it's worth us checking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. We had some discussion of sending appeals first to the oversight team, with the Committee as the second course of appeal, but most people preferred an either/or option. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Everyone on the funct-en list should have signed the NDA by now, so it could be functionally used for all discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if they have signed it, you still can't reveal suppressed information to anyone apart from oversighters and you can't reveal CU information to anyone apart from checkusers. Therefore, you still can't discuss suppressed information on functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Per my comments above about the difficultly in hearing and deciding on appeals when the people deciding can't discuss openly all of the information. I'd absolutely support if appeals were to be sent to OS-l instead of functionaries-en. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Callanecc. I support almost all of this, but can't vote for it while there's an open possibility of appeals landing in a place where they can't be fully discussed. I think the destination should be either oversight-l or a new archived list specifically for appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Like Callanecc and OR, I would support this if it was OS-l. You may wish to consider that wording. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 18:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Callanecc says. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Piling on. Doug Weller  talk 08:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As above. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.
 * Support
 * 1) Put your money where your mouth is and all that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Thank you Callannecc. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Keilana (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) If we're going to open OS-L like this, might as well shut down the OTRS queue and just handle requests there, too. (I truly hate OTRS for requesting oversight.  Does nothing but add an unnecessary step to the workflow, especially when working on a mobile/tablet.) Courcelles (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit of OTRS is that is does require someone to reveal their email address, and to hence single one member of the team out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Assuming that the list is archived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree that the list should be archived.  Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) the list must be archived. (second choice) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) With archiving, this could work, although there is no process in place for how they would be handled when requested. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion
 * Is the intention here that archiving would be turned on for OS-l? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would probably be best that archiving be turned on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Looking into it. Doug Weller  talk 08:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Checkuser block appeals


Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an checkuser as checkuser blocks should be sent to the functionaries team via email to be decided by the English Wikipedia checkusers, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking checkuser as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support
 * 1) I think it's worth keeping the two practices in sync. Proposing this now to avoid having to have a follow-up statement (as we did in 2013) to clarify and sync them up again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Thinking about this some more, checkuser blocks are much more common and the appeals are usually less complex than for Oversight blocks. Currently CU blocks can be appealed to any other CU(s), in consultation with the blocking CU, or to ArbCom. Making them all go through functionaries-en is going to complicate this and, given that IPs/locations/UAs can't be discussed, get complicated. Plus consider how many appeals are dealt with quickly in unblock requests, or through normal talk page discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) As above, I can't support the possibility of sending appeals to a place where they can't be discussed in full. I do think the two processes should be synchronized and there should be a venue for directing appeals to CUs as a group, though that doesn't preclude directly contacting the blocking CU. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) There is already sufficient practice in place to deal with Checkuserblocks without us muddying it more. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) As above; per Callanecc, basically. There's something to be said for keeping processes in sync, but the two processes start in different enough places. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Callanecc & Drmies. Keilana (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) And me, per Callanecc and Drmies.  Doug Weller  talk 08:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Amanda, despite my preference for consistency. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain