Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 94

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (November 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by The Wordsmith at 22:04, 19 October 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 The Wordsmith
Motion 6 (WP:NEWBLPBAN) authorized Standard Discretionary Sanctions for BLP content. This precludes WP:INVOLVED admins from acting. The older WP:BLPSE had a similar clause.

However, it seems that this contradicts WP:BLPADMINS, which states that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved."

In an apparent conflict between policy and Arbcom decision, which prevails? My own opinion is that involved Administrators are able to block, but not log it as a Discretionary Sanction and the block would be subject to the lower standard for reversal that we use for other blocks. There isn't a specific incident I'm thinking of, but I could see it becoming an issue in the future and would like clarification on how that might be handled. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm asking the Committee to clarify both of those things, what options (regular, DS etc) are and are not available to an administrator who is involved. For example, if you added a blatant BLP vio to an article I already participate in, is blocking you allowed? Is blocking you as a Discretionary Sanction allowed? Is a topic ban allowed? I believe the first but not the latter two are correct, but I'd like the Committee to clarify where the line is drawn. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:36, 20 October 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.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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


 * Renamed to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons".
 * This isn't a clerk action, but can I ask you to clarify your request? Are you asking the Committee to clarify whether: (a) Admins may act while involved in accordance with WP:BLP, notwithstanding WP:ACDS; (b) Admins may impose discretionary sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN notwithstanding WP:ACDS pursuant to WP:BLP? Kevin ( alt of L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * WP:INVOLVED says that admins should not act in disputed cases but can act (use admin tools) in "straightforward cases" when "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". This is entirely consistent with the BLP policy which states that admins when involved may act to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations", however "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator". Involved admins can, therefore, use normal admin tools in clear cases. However, discretionary sanctions grant individual admins much more power and authority (in comparison normal admin tools when involved can be overturned by any other admin) so should only be used when the circumstances are absolutely clear and the admin is neutral. To answer the question more precisely, an admin can block or protect as a normal admin action but not impose a discretionary sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As Callanecc notes above DS gives a lot more latitude to administrators than the normal BLP policy does. When using that extended latitude (AC/DS), administrators are expected to not be involved. In regards to normal actions, there are also many administrators on this site and as the committee has noted before no perception of an admin thinking they are the only one enforcing things gives them the ability to act where policy wouldn't allow it. Doing so could result in DS or sanctions for that administrator. I know that's not claimed here, but felt the need to add it. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Callanecc said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Callanecc and Amanda said. Doug Weller  talk 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Callanecc about DS, but think that there is almost never any reason to use the admin tools oneself when one is involved, and "clear" is not sufficient guidance. Rather, it's an open invitation to doing it and trying to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc said it well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly necessary, but pile-on "what Callanecc said" now that I'm looking at ARCA for the first time in ages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Darkfrog24 at 04:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment and clarification are requested
 * 1) Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
 * 2) Block of Darkfrog24
 * 3) Topic ban of Darkfrog24


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24
 * Reject/repudiate


 * Block of Darkfrog24
 * Unblock


 * Topic ban of Darkfrog24
 * Revisit

≠=== Statement by Darkfrog24 === I request that discussion, if any, of SMcCandlish's misconduct take place in a separate thread.

Part I: Gaslighting
EDIT: SMcCandlish has alleged that I brought up this specific accusation as some kind of trick. I did not. You guys made it clear last time that you did not consider it your job to weigh in on every individual accusation, but I figured no one would mind if I asked you to do so on just one. I picked this accusation in particular for the reasons I gave below and because it is important to me personally, regardless of what role it did or did not play in the rest of this. It has done me considerable harm, and I don't mean to my hobbies or on-Wiki reputation. I mean harm. I'll say more if you ask me to, but I'd rather not. To address the issue of whether I thought the admins believed it, of course I did: They acted on it. It's one thing for SMcCandlish to say something extreme on some talk page and quite another for that statement to be officially endorsed and punishment meted out. The idea that anyone thinks I would do something that evil has been eating me alive. This didn't happen last winter. It started last winter and has been happening every day. If my hands are still touching the stick, it's because I'm trying to block the blows.

I'd worked with him for five and a half years at that point and did not at that time think he was a bad person. Is it that hard to believe I was worried about him?

This is first because it is necessary.

Is it Wikipedia's position that I tried to gaslight SMcCandlish?

Gaslighting is the attempt to convince someone that they're crazy using systematic psychological harassment and torture.

Here are the accusation and links cited:. Last summer, he was acting weird, like something bad had happened off-Wiki. I asked another editor to go easy on him. I asked him (on his talk page, not in front of everyone) if he was okay. I dropped the matter immediately after reading his reply. That is not gaslighting; that is what people should do.

Why this accusation


 * It's extremely serious. Gaslighting isn't just misconduct.  It's real-world evil.  You'd have to almost not be human.
 * It's similar to the other accusations in that, for it to be true, I would have had to have meant the exact opposite of what I said and my accuser offered no proof of this.
 * Kindness is cruelty because it came from me? This is wrong on every level.

Why this is worth ArbCom's time

In addition to the harm this has done me personally, Wikipedia is bleeding talent and the #1 reason people give for leaving is the toxic environment. The idea that editors can be punished for being nice to someone on the other side of the aisle is the second worst thing I've seen on Wikipedia. We're supposed to be a community.

If you do think that I actually did this, say so.

Other activity
I come bearing zero attempts at block evasion and, per instructions at Meta-Wiki, months of meaningful contributions to other parts of project Wiki.

I have translated much of Category:Euryarchaeota into Spanish and added new content to most articles, with corresponding updates to Wikidata. Any content disputes were resolved through discussion.

As a result, I was sponsored for autoverificado status, unsolicited. (not the same as autoconfirmation)

I've also worked at Idea Lab, participating in the June anti-harassment drive and other projects. [ I have been thanked].

Solution
I had a different text ready, but a recent conversation gave me some highly useful perspective.

Clarify: 1) I was blocked for volume, not for "talking about other users." The reason I can't figure out why you think my February post to Thryduulf violates WP:BANEX is because you don't. 2) You consider asking about how topic bans work, which I did several times, and attempting to renegotiate my topic ban, which I did once to be the same thing or at least to draw from the same well, the way some employers combine sick and vacation days but others consider them separate. Is that it?

Here's the problem, though: I was targeted by a complaint with excessive volume. "10,000 words" is not hyperbole. I did not even get to finish reading it before I was sanctioned, and when I did, I found it was heavily falsified. I don't think anyone here believes "Accusers get as much time as they want to write statements as long as they want and say whatever they want and if the accused can't handle that in days, into the trash with them" is okay. That invites abuse. There's got to be a non-disruptive place between my actions and not being allowed to climb out from under the bus.

...that place is clear guidelines for long complaints, and I am in an excellent position to be part of that solution. I've worked out some strong ideas:


 * Reject without prejudice all accusations over a certain limit (the come-back-with-something-shorter rule).
 * Allow qualitatively different complaints to be filed consecutively. Instead of rolling eyes at accusers who file a second complaint if the first one fails, encourage it. Admins could spread the weight, and it would be much easier for sanctioned editors to figure out why they were sanctioned. From what I've seen at AE "You were guilty of WP:X but not WP:Y" is often what really happened, and saying so makes the accused less likely to suspect anything fishy.
 * Give the accused sufficient time to prepare a response, perhaps with a stay-off-the-page-in-question-in-the-meantime requirement (for all parties) and commit to reading the whole thing. EDIT: Since drafting this appeal, I've seen Bishonen and Sagerad work out something similar . I'd say at least a day and a half per 500 words of complaint (mine took a month). Downside: This one is the most work.
 * Read only part of the complaint and tell the accused to respond to only that part. Dismiss the rest without prejudice. This is what I attempted. Frankly, I don't believe the admins did read the whole complaint, and one admitted that s/he had not. Upside: This is highly time- and effort-efficient.
 * More.

I wasn't ready for a complaint twenty times the limit, and I can believe the AE admins weren't either. Over this year, there's been a growing awareness at AE that the accused shouldn't be expected to respond on the spot. Those efforts should be supported.

Part III: Topic
The source of confusion here is that the AE admins issued the ban for the reasons Thryduulf gave in February, none of which are true and some of which can be easily disproven, but the Committee upheld it for a completely different reason, discussed over email last April. Again, it looks like the issue with my actions at project MOS is closer to volume than to content, and you would consider qualitatively similar participation acceptable so long as there were less of it, per SlimVirgin and my own voluntary offer back in January (NOTE: At the time, I thought "1RR" meant "one talk page post per day.")

I request that you state this. "Darkfrog24 is topic banned for [phrase as you prefer] and nothing else." I would like it if you explicitly rejected the other accusations: "Darkfrog did not call people names, battleground, falsify ENGVAR claims, push POV..." but that's what I want. What I need is up top.


 * Opabinia, that is the first time that anyone has said that to me. I am not and have never contested topic bans must be obeyed while in force.  I've obeyed mine, and if you guys lift the block but not the ban I will continue to do so.  But there should be some recourse for people who are targeted unfairly or whose accusers spam or abuse the system.  If pushing someone under a moving bus is not considered disruptive, then trying to climb out shouldn't be either.
 * If you mean, "Sanctioned editors must only contest the accusations against them at the designated appeal date, no matter the circumstances," then say that, but say it. It should be added to WP:TBAN.
 * It is absolutely imperative that the committee officially endorse or reject the accusation of gaslighting. Whether or not I'm an evil person is not minutiae.  I'll explain further if you need, but I'd rather not.  Can you do me this favor?

The only words needed from you, SMcCandlish are "I'm very sorry for lying and I promise never to do it again." Or even just that last part. You may leave now. You will be notified of any proceedings regarding your misconduct.

If you want proof that SMcCandlish knowingly and deliberately lied at AE, I will provide it. However, that and his other misconduct should be handled in a separate thread and appropriate venue. I am not the first person he has targeted. Frankly, it bothers me a great deal that some individuals on Wikipedia seem to care more that I called him a liar than that he lied. He's called me a liar and worse things, with no proof at all, and no one batted an eye. (And yes his statement was just under 10,000 words. 1800+ in-thread and about a 7000 linked-in portion.  Even if its contents had not been grossly fabricated, its length alone made responding in the normal time frame impossible.)

As to which way the interaction ban should go, well, I didn't Wikistalk through seven years of his user history and spend months writing an eighteen-page treatise full of fabrications about him. I didn't call him slurs. I didn't speculate about his job and make fun of what I thought it was. I defended his right to hold whatever belief he wanted so long as he stopped his hostile behavior toward people who don't share them. I did not mock and bait him while he was topic-banned. And I absolutely did not say that "Are you okay" was gaslighting if he was the one who said it. He's the one who shouldn't be allowed to talk to me. But yes, if he weren't allowed to talk to or about me, that would knock out a lot of the problem at WT:MOS. Take his creepy obsession with me and shut it down.

I will repeat to you my statement that I will continue to obey the topic ban while it is in force, but yes I will still seek to have it lifted either on schedule in February or at some earlier time of the committee's choosing. It is simply a matter of doing so in a way that has been established as nondisruptive&mdash;which is why the committee, community or both should establish procedures for dealing with very long complaints regardless of what else happens here. If you guys think I have to prove myself on some other part of the encyclopedia before going back to project MoS, well, I don't think that's necessary, but I'd still do it. (NOTE: I am under the impression that topic bans, including this one, are meant to be temporary.) About my ability to follow the topic ban, well, I have been reading AE threads from January through October to internalize patterns of what is and isn't allowed. I don't see why they can't just be written down at WP:TBAN, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish speculated that I was "[only] a community college professor" and talked about how CC profs are stupid or something. I can find this or any of the diffs if necessary, but I don't think this is the right venue.

Again, this should really be addressed in its own thread, but I worked with SMcCandlish for over five years, and this is a pattern with him: Accuse the other person of doing the thing that he's doing so they look stupid if they counter-accuse. Calling names, slurs against my mental health, ignoring sources. Only difference is I called him on it first this time.

Do not let SMcCandlish confuse the issue of whether I should be unblocked. What if anything should be done about his actions is a separate issue, and it it should be handled in the right way, with diffs and enough time to read any statements made against him.

Point a, but is there more?
I have a concern. I've agreed to Opabinia's point a), more than once, but it looks like you guys want me to agree to something else too. I have an idea of a few things it might be but I am concerned that if I ask you "Is it this?" I will end up making some big sacrifice only to have one of you say months or years from now "I never told Darkfrog24 they had to do that.  They did it on their own." I've had people do that with me before.  Maybe none of you have any intention of doing that and this is just a matter of hard communication, but that is why I do not want to voice any guesses about what is required of me, regardless of whether they'd be right.

Please state explicitly, "Darkfrog24, in addition to continuing to obey the topic ban and appealing it only through official, nondisruptive channels we want you to do/not do [action]" or "Darkfrog24, we do not generally require sanctioned editors to [do this] but we are asking/telling you to do it anyway. We feel that it is what is best for this specific case."

If it is that topic-banned editors are not allowed to talk about the topic ban or their accusers, even if they do not mention the banned topic itself, then you need to talk with this guy at WT:TBAN because not everyone's on the same page.


 * In light of GW's comment about interaction bans, I feel I must say that I haven't been calling SMcCandlish names or casting aspersions against his mental health as he claimed, but he's done both to me. He has repeatedly disregarded the instructions he was given at AE to stop initiating conversations with me in my userspace.  When he declined my invitation to talk about his personal problems, I dropped the matter and left him alone.  When he was topic-banned, I didn't mock or speak ill of him.  Putting me in a position in which he could continue to abuse me and I would not be able to so much as contradict him or remove his comments from my userspace would be wrong.


 * I believe Robert's suggestion merits exploration. Again, I'm, well, not fine with Opabinia's stipulation, but I'm willing to do it, but we all have to get on the same page about what that means.  If what you want from me is something other than what has already been said, then asking you to name it really doesn't seem like too much to ask.


 * I don't want to voice a guess, but I will. I'm interpreting this as "Yes, don't renegotiate the topic-ban constantly or even remotely often, but no, not not ever; use the official schedule only." If this is not correct, then kindly say so.


 * Opabinia, I actually feel your statement is progress. Take every time I said "guess" and replace it with "simple inference." I'm here asking if the inferences that I have drawn are correct or not before I expend large amounts of effort acting on them.  I don't want to spend months and years trying to solve the wrong problem.
 * At this point I have to wonder, is whatever it is that you really want from me something that you're embarrassed or ashamed to say? Is it something you don't want to have to admit you ever asked for?  Yes, "We want this editor to never appeal their sanctions" and "[removed by poster; see last line]," both sound ugly, but if either of them is what's going on here, or if, like with what looked like Spartaz's breaking the one-year rule on AE blocks, there is some other more benign explanation that merely happens to be tucked out of sight under a pile of archived precedents, frankly, it is cruel not to tell me why I'm being punished or what it would take to stop these daily beatings.  Leaving me hanging is uglier.
 * I'm sure whatever it is seems really obvious to you, but remember that you've been steeped in arbitration regs day in and day out for years and I haven't. I'd never even heard the terms "discretionary sanctions" or "voluntary ban" or "broadly construed" until relatively recently, and it took months to piece them out.  Wikipedia is a big, polyglot project with all kinds of people in it, and not everyone is going to think the same way.  Sometimes you're going to have to spell it out.
 * EDIT: Wait a second. Would anyone feel more comfortable if you told me what's expected of me but not publicly?  Is it something you don't want to blurt out in front of everyone?

Just so it's on record here, I did not go to Wales' talk page to crusade, as Spartaz puts it. I asked for someone to come and help us communicate. I used the word "translation." You guys think you're being clear. I think I'm being clear. Things still aren't meeting neatly. This is where someone else coming in could make a difference. I believed I was allowed to make this post because blocked editors are allowed to appeal to Wales and he is included in the request. Spartaz has told me on my talk page that I must not continue posting to Wales' talk page in this way, and I have done so.

Request for translation at J. Wales' talk page
...has produced some useful comments. :

"'Relitigating' includes but is not limited to talking about how this person lied, or that process was bad/unfair and could be improved, or Darkfrog disagrees with the topic ban because X, Y, Z. That limitation does not preclude them from appealing their topic ban. Instead, it means that any appeal they make must not include a discussion of any other editor's behaviour or what happened when they were banned but must focus solely on their own behaviour."

Is that it? Please confirm two things: 1) This looks like it means I'd be forbidden from saying that SMcCandlish lied at AE in January but I would still be at liberty to say "It is not true that I made bogus claims, bit the new guy, etc." should I choose to do so so long as his name is not mentioned and no case is made regarding whether he was lying or innocently mistaken, etc. 2) I am or am not forbidden from participating in discussions of how the AE process could be improved? Please confirm. It all sounds plausible to me, but I need to hear it from you.


 * Response to issues raised by Ca2James.
 * You can say "That's not true" without saying "The person who said it is a liar." If Bill says "there was a black cat in the library on Monday," when video footage shows that there was no black cat in the library, then Bill might be lying but also might just be wrong, mistaken, got the day confused, etc. If it's been a while Bill might just have a memory issue.  Saying "there was no black cat in the library on Monday" does not automatically amount to "Bill is a liar." The issue of whether there was a black cat in the library or not can be addressed without bringing Bill up at all.
 * I am asking Do you mean that I have to confess to infractions that I did not commit to get the sanctions removed? Or can I show up to AE on appeal day and say,  and so on?


 * Why I'm asking for clarification No CaJames, that is not why I am asking for clarification. At first, I was asking for clarification to show that I was willing to take the sanction seriously and remain within its limits even though I didn't agree that it should be in place, willing to develop a better Wikipedia MO even though I didn't think my old one was that bad.  We can always do better.  I was submitting to authority and showing that I could be obedient.  They yelled "Jump!" and I was asking "How high?" Later, I asked for clarification because I had been repeatedly punched in the face for breaking rules that I had not known existed.  They're not written down, not at WP:TBAN, not anywhere.  I keep hearing "Well just don't talk about or edit the subject you're banned from!" but I haven't.  I keep getting sanctioned for other things.  If it were that simple, this would have been over months ago.  The way this feels to me was that I was told "Don't go into the park or even touch the fence!" and I got sanctioned for using the sidewalk on the other side of the street.  A "Don't use that sidewalk either" would have saved everyone a lot of time.  Let's just get all the expectations laid out now.


 * I am absolutely not gathering evidence against SMcCandlish. I do have some, but it's from the complaint that he made against me. After he posted it in January, I read it.  Took a month.  I did write up a full-length rebuttal, but I haven't looked at it in months.  There are a couple of places where SMcCandlish couldn't have just made a mistake, where I can prove he knew the statement was false when he made it.  That's what I mean when I say "I have proof." I did not go and wiki-stalk his user history looking for trouble like he did to me.


 * Regarding "every little thing." I realize you consider the issue of whether I made a falsified ENGVAR claim, bit the new guys, ignored sources and so on to be minutiae, but please remember that the enforcing admin TOLD me that this is why I was sanctioned. I would have dearly liked to have heard "This is stupid minutiae and a waste of everyone's time.  Now let's focus on the real issue: That Darkfrog24 defends their position too aggressively, at too great a length, and too often" back when these accusations were first made.  You have no idea how much.
 * I realize that in ArbCom's opinion, these individual complaints are not the matter, but they scald. As you can see above, I do realize that ArbCom has a separate reason for keeping the topic-ban in place.  That section is the smallest because I really wasn't expecting for the ban to be lifted today anyway.  This was mostly about gaslighting, the block, and plugging the hole in the AE system.


 * Regarding technicalities. I feel that "The complaint was so long that I didn't get to read it first" is more than a technicality. I'm trying to say, to paraphrase Salvio, some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, and the eventual sanction, an indefinite block, is excessive.  I also think I have some good ideas for how to keep messes like this one from happening again.


 * Well at this point, Ca2James, I want SMcCandlish to leave me the heck alone. I've told him to stay away from me.  Admins have told him to stay away from me.
 * I guess what I'm saying is I posted all those questions early on to show that I was diligent and involved and willing to put in the work. It took a couple months to figure out that what the admins actually wanted was low-maintenance.  That's a perfectly common-sense expectation, but so is diligent and involved.  I definitely have a better idea of what people want from sanctioned users now than I did back in January.
 * Thanks for the strikes on "collecting evidence" and your take on what the admins have been trying to say. I could do without the hostility, but whatever else happens, thanks for answering my question and trying to help us communicate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Final clarification
It sounds like the motion is saying that I do not have to pretend that the accusations were true or in any way endorse them at my next appeal.

Would said appeal take place here or through the normal unblock system?

I point you toward section III above. Please confirm whether I have guessed the matter correctly. You do not agree with Thryduulf's list about the reasons for the original topic-ban. Rather you believe it is for the other reason outlined there, the volume of my participation in the debates over WP:LQ, not specific misconduct. (I have also been assuming from the beginning that I was not sanctioned based on what side of that debate I am on.) Please say either, "Yes, that is correct" or "No, that is not correct. In my/our view, you were topic-banned because of [reason]." I need to know what part of my Wikipedia MO to work on. Basically, establish the location of the goalposts, as of today. You can always change your mind later.

I would like the committee, either individually or as a body, to reject the accusation of gaslighting. It is extremely important. '''This is not about what SMcCandlish thought the word meant. It is about what the admins who acted on it thought I had done. This is about the meaning of the official sanction.' I wasn't trying to either psychologically torture or'' belittle anyone. I was just being nice.

Statement by SMcCandlish
In a user talk post concurrent with this ARCA, Darkfrog24 opens with a renewal of this user's pursuit of vengeance against me: "My own case is complicated. Short version: It started when I was targeted by a liar with a grudge". Nothing has changed, and this self-defeating ARCA is not "complicated" at all, but essentially identical to the last one, in April. DarkFrog24 was instructed in no uncertain terms to stop beating the dead horse of her personalized campaign against me (,, among other admonitions), and failure to do so was one of the main reasons the very narrow t-ban became a broader one, then a block, then an indef. The direct tie between abandoning this vendetta and perhaps being allowed to return to edit again was made clear, not just repeatedly at AE but also by admins at DF24's own talk page (multiple times, this is just the latest one, from June): Now here we are again, with DF24 not asking to return to WP to work on something else, but dwelling entirely on the general topic of the topic ban, continued pursuit of a hounding effort against me that stems directly and entirely from that topic, and why everyone else is wrong. This editor is clearly not getting the point, on a long-term if not permanent basis, and equally clearly is just biding time restart the same fray. Both of these were the other major factors in the escalating series of sanctions against DF24, who pestered AE admins incessantly with an "I just don't understand" act and constant border-testing for weeks until indeffed, and resumed the same behavior when allowed to edit her user talk page again (cf. the threads I just cited from June and October).
 * "[T]he time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban." ( .]
 * And later by someone else: "You've been told by admins to stop relitigating, and yet you keep relitigating (as with pretty much your entire reply, immediately above)." (, October, from a series of posts that are clearly stated to be responses to Wikipedia e-mails DF24 had been sending to pursue involvement in the topic-ban issue and against other editors associated with it.)
 * See also: "[W]hat 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." (, in April ARCA ).


 * I. "Gaslighting" has multiple meanings, the most common of which is using clever language to try to pooh-pooh others' perceptions and experiences and make them seem irrational or overreactive perhaps even to the person to whom they belong. Anyone following liberal/Democrat/progressive online debates, for example, would be well-steeped in that meaning by now.  DF24's attempt to suggest my choice of one particular word (for which she holds to a quite extreme definition) constitutes a personal attack is hyperbolic (note the hyperbole it's peppered with directly: "systematic psychological harassment and torture", "extremely serious", "real-world evil", etc., etc.).  The broader meaning of gaslighting is regularly used in at least the American press, in the same sense that I obviously intended, e.g. in reference to the "post-truth" Trump campaign . There are even entire articles about it:,.
 * II.   I did not submit 10,000 words of evidence at AE.  I had a page of unsorted, uncompressed evidence I was preparing for an eventual ArbCom case to deal with DF24's disruptive behavior when the AE actions came up unexpectedly. I mentioned this page of diffs as something AE admins could look at if they wanted to, despite its state; they chose to do so, and it was sufficient for them.  DF24's entire premise here is predicated on the twin false suppositions that a) AE admins may only look at officially submitted evidence and can't do their own diff-reading, and b) AE admins are categorically incapable of assessing the evidence on their own, as if their brains short-circuit when they see evidence that has any commentary by its provider.
 * III.  DF24 clearly does not understand at all the reasons for even the original topic ban, which had nothing to do with "volume". This has actually been explained to her before. Note also that since at least February 6, DF24 has conceded that the AE admins are telling her she's not getting it .  This ARCA is basically a combination of wikilawyering and victim theatre.

Also, most of DF24's post above is the user trying to appeal things that cannot be appealed until the twelve-month mark, in Feb. 2017. Only the indef was subject to a six-month review.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I ask that this one-way i-ban now be imposed; that will provide me relief from DF24's vendetta, while also preventing a repeat of this sort of pointless request from DF24. A future one by the editor would necessarily have to focus on something else, like DF24's willingness to work on entirely unrelated activities at en.wiki, and acceptance of and movement beyond the t-ban, its topic, and anyone involved in it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I just remembered that warned DF24, "There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them."


 * And now this illustrates clearly why DF24 needs to be banned from interacting with me; this projective vendetta stuff is obviously never going to stop otherwise. (I'm assuming that DF24 will eventually return from the block, though the MoS t-ban being lifted seems unlikely.) Much of that anti-SMcCandlish rant doesn't even make sense. How could I be "speculating" about DF24's professional background if it's self-disclosed at User:Darkfrog24 and frequently mentioned in the user's own posts? Etc. Whatever. I don't have any further time to waste on this stuff. There's only one "creepy obsession" that needs to be "shut down" here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I argued repeatedly myself that DF24 should not be blocked, for the same "can be productive elsewhere" rationale, but this is self-evidently no longer the case, and this became self-evident by around AE #2 of 3. This WP:GREATWRONGS campaign has become entirely tendentious for this editor. If she cannot even use her one clear, open shot at getting reinstated to good effect by avoiding relitigation, even after numerous warnings, it cannot be taken seriously that this behavior would not continue after reinstatement (at least not now; maybe after a long break the editor will drop this stuff and move on). The rest of your points I already addressed at the Jimbo talk page thread. TL;DR: I definitely do not agree to refrain from presenting evidence as needed if this comes up again, as it probably will in February. The "gaslighting" stuff is a red herring, a hand-wave to distract from the real issues with the editor's behavior; it had nothing to do with the t-ban, the block, or the indef. It doesn't matter whether DF24 was insinuating things about my mentality at all in her discussions with CurlyTurkey; what mattered was she was actively trying to recruit someone else among the MoS regulars to act as her proxy to "go after" me over MoS matters, in violation of her topic ban. Then squandered her ARCA hearing, which should have been about dropping the matter and moving on the productive, to instead burn it on seeking my head on a pike again. The funny thing is, I did not initiate a single one of those AE actions against her; my "sin" was that diffs I provided were solid enough evidence to act on. We have an article on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Correction: There were four, not three, AEs (, [,, ) and I did initiate one of them (the second); this has gone on for so long and at such length that I'd forgotten. At any rate, the evidence I made available was in the first AE, a complaint lodged by someone else.  — [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish ☺]] ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @IP commenter, re: "So let's get this straight" – You didn't get any of it straight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * DF24's bit above that goes "is whatever it is that you really want from me something that you're embarrassed or ashamed to say? Is it something you don't want to have to admit you ever asked for?", is a good example of what I mean by this editor's gaslighting, in the broad sense of trying to get party B to doubt their own perception, memory, intent, or other mental processes (in this case, also laced with appeal to emotion for the "benefit" of third parties in the discussion); it neatly fits the pattern I diffed in previous rounds. At any rate, DF24's question in "" above should probably be responded to before this is closed, as a way to shut down one avenue of this "I just don't understand" gaming.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: Something I missed earlier: DF24 writes, "Admins have told [SMcCandlish] to stay away from me" (a claim she's repeated in several other places), but this is simply not true, and is a good example of the projection I was talking about. It is, rather, DF24 who has been repeatedly administratively admonished to drop the stick she's beating me to paste with and to stop picking it back up. What DF24 seems to be misremembering and hyperbolizing is an admin recommending me and others stop discussing something about punctuation at User talk:Darkfrog24 since DF24's topic ban also applied to her own talk page ; and we did as requested. The total extent of my interaction with DF24, outside ARCA, since then has been the following (and note what little resemblance this bears to DF24's claims above that I'm harassing her): A) A notice that I did something DF24 seemed to want, B) response to DF24's own direct question to me , and C) constructive suggestions related to two WP policy essays , . All of these have been met with raw hostility , , , . Since an admin suggested, after DF24's block, of which I was unaware at the time, that posting to DF24's user talk page would be more likely to produce negative than positive results , I have not done so other than to drop off a notice (item A above). It's one thing to not want to have extended conversations with someone about old issues, but punitive instant reversion of material that has nothing to do with that and was only about improving essay pages that openly invite all editorial input, followed by her verbal attacks in edit summaries, and then zero-evidence claims at ARCA of harassment, are not good signs but likely portents of future behavior if the rope is paid out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert Walker
My aim with this statement is to find a way forward to help Darkfrog24 to move on to become a productive wikipedia editor. First, full disclosure, I'm semi-involved. I have collaborated with Darkfrog24 with a proposal for the Inspire initiative on meta, I can vouch for them as an editor with a great deal of insight who did much to help shape the proposal. I feel that they have a lot to contribute to wikipedia and it is sad to see them blocked in this way. I want to help them to move on. Also I know from conversations with them via email that they also want to move on and put this behind them as much as the rest of you.

They feel that they have a lot they could contribute to wikipedia, including special interests in the topic areas of


 * Methanogenic archaea (they have been working on this in the Spanish wikipedia and here in wikipedia contributed the articles Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like)
 * Game of Thrones

So how can this be moved forward? I understand that you are saying that they need to agree to certain conditions first, for the block to be removed but am not at all clear on what those are. Here is a suggestion as a starting point. Would this be agreeable to you if it is agreeable to them?


 * Ask them to agree not to take SMcCandlish back to this board for anything he has said prior to today's date
 * Ask SMcCandlish similarly to agree not to take them back to this board for anything said prior to today's date
 * With one exception. these past comments can be discussed in the appropriate venue in any future appeal against their topic ban, if that is necessary for a successful appeal.

Would such an agreement suffice for lifting the block? If not, can you suggest what conditions would be sufficient? Please be specific, about what exactly you would require of Darkfrog24. I'd also appreciate being told what the reasoning is for those requirements.

Before we put it to bed I wonder if I can be permitted to say something about the gaslighting charge as well - again not in an attempt to change decisions, but rather as a way to try to promote mutual understanding here. I think it may be due to a difference in use of language. As someone from the UK, just reading the diff (I haven't asked them what they meant), I found your reactions to it bewildering. To me "slightly more than his baseline" means such things as a bad week at work, domestic issues, financial troubles or the like.

With that background the rest of the diff reads to me just like them asking other editors to go easy on SMcCandlish because they may be going through a rough time at present. It suggests nothing at all about mental impairment, never mind the far more serious charge of gaslighting which SMcCandlish made in January. I can't see anything in that diff, or the other diffs he supplied that remotely suggests gaslighting, when read in context. As I read it (as a reader from the UK), it is rather an attempt by Darkfrog24 to evoke sympathy towards SMcCandlish with other editors. I am sure that their only objective here since then has been to clear their own name in the records of what would seem to be a serious charge against them that hasn't been cleared. But it hasn't worked well, and it is best for both sides, I think, if the past is treated as the past and both sides begin with a fresh slate.

The aim of this post is to find a way forward that you can both agree to. It is not an attempt to influence the debate, and neither has Darkfrog24 asked me to do so. I am aware of wikipedia guidelines on WP:CANVAS. I believe that this post is in accord with those guidelines. If this post is thought to infringe them in any way, I will of course remove it.


 * - Just to say I don't understand what your conditions are either. What you gave as a condition of removing the block (if I understand right) is:


 * a) agree that your future participation on the English Wikipedia will be contingent on staying away from the MOS and style issues, and ceasing to endlessly re-argue the circumstances of your topic ban


 * On the face of it, that would seem that you are requesting to agree to never appeal against their topic ban using the process set out in their topic ban notice:


 * ""... may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016).... You may appeal this sanction using the process described here.""


 * That seems an unlikely interpretation, that you want to take away their ability to appeal sanctions in the same way as anyone else. So what are the requirements you wish to impose? Please be specific. From my experience I know  is keen to follow due process and has often advised me on such matters when working on our proposal for the Inspire initiative on meta. They are especially careful about such things. If you set out exactly what is required, and answer any of their questions in case it is unclear what is intended, then it would help greatly. Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of mutual understanding
and and other admins, perhaps I can help draw attention to some aspects of Darkfrog24's situation? By far the most serious accusation leading to their indef topic ban is the charge of gaslighting. writes there:

""DF24 ... has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, ... Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) ... Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit""

SMcClandish has just said on Jimmy Wales's talk page that he meant it in the second sense in this online urban dictionary

""A more psychological definition of gaslighting is "an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information to, the victim - having the gradual effect of making them anxious, confused, and less able to trust their own memory and perception.""

So Darkfrog24 has to clear their name of this charge somehow. There is nothing for them to apologize for since it's clear from the diffs that they never did any gaslighting. If SMcClandish doesn't retract the charge, can I suggest that perhaps some impartial editor or admin could investigate the matter and establish if it ever happened or not? Everything they said about lying and gaslighting, as I read it, is mainly in the interests of clearing this mark from their records, since without doing that, a future topic ban appeal would seem to be impossible. Robert Walker (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Admins, can I ask for clarification?
Posting this after your new motion. If I understand you right, there has been no suggestion that they have done anything against the actual terms of either of the topic bans since their first topic ban on quotation marks was instated. So, to get the block lifted, it seems that they have to agree to something to do with personal conduct.

The indef block statement says they are blocked until they agree to stop relitigating it, but doesn't say in detail what that involves. The topic ban statements don't mention personal conduct. It is good to know that the ARE action is not an endorsement of every claim made by the filer. Do they have to appeal any of the charges made during the TBan discussion to appeal the block? The indef statement also suggests that they don't understand the terms of the TBan.

I think it would help a lot if you could draft out a more detailed statement for them to agree to which lays out


 * What they can and can't discuss in a future ARCA block appeal, and in particular, clarification of what would count as future relitigation.
 * Is there anything in the original TBan terms that they seem not to have understood in your view?
 * What they need to agree to, for the block to be lifted.

Statement by Spartaz
This has clearly run its course and DF is now taking his crusade to Jimbo's talk page. They have also been warned about propagating their feud with SMMcCandlish on their talk while unblocked but blown off the warning. This has gone far enough I think. Can a Clark or Arb reinstate the block or would it be OK for me to do that? Spartaz Humbug!
 * unblocking arb please review if block should be reinstated. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * time to get out of the tub. You be all wrinkly now. 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ca2james
As I was mentioned above and since this is still open, here's my take.

Let me start by saying that I'm confused by 's first question to me above: This looks like it means I'd be forbidden from saying that SMcCandlish lied at AE in January but I would still be at liberty to say "It is not true that I made bogus claims, bit the new guy, etc." should I choose to do so so long as his name is not mentioned and no case is made regarding whether he was lying or innocently mistaken, etc. This statement appears to me to completely miss the point that the circumstances of the topic ban must not be relitigated, or mentioned, or brought up on a talk page. To answer the question: as far as I understand it, no, Darkfrog24 would not be at liberty to say that, or to talk about 's behaviour without mentioning his name.

That question and Darkfrog's post on Jimbo's talk page both suggest to me that one of the reasons Darkfrog24 is continually asking for clarification is because they're hoping that someone will tell them that they can do whatever it is that they want to do; ie that they're looking for loopholes by picking out this or that part of the guidelines/sanctions/advice to follow. As an example of something they want to do, Darkfrog24 has stated that they're gathering evidence wanting to be able to post evidence against SMcCandlish. Since I expect that the evidence involves the MOS, I think that talking about collecting wanting to collect and present it might be a violation of their MOS topic ban. Both the question above and this post I diffed indicate that Darkfrog24 is trying to find a way within the sanctions to collect and present this evidence.

It has also occurred to me that Darkfrog24 is treating an appeal on Wikipedia as if it were a court appeal in the US, where the sentence (or sanction, on Wikipedia) can be thrown out on a technicality, making it worth arguing every little point to get the sanction overturned. On Wikipedia, my understanding is that an editor is sanctioned because they were found to be disruptive; sanctioning removes that editor from the situation and allows other editors to get to work. My understanding is that an appeal has one goal: to show that the sanctioned editor will no longer be disruptive in the area. Ca2james (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (edited 21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Wow,, that's a lot of words in reply to my statement, most of which you've said before and some of which is yet another relitigation of the circumstances of your topic ban. I have read everything related to your case - all the AEs, ARCAs, Talk pages, etc, and all the diffs associated with them - and I stand by my above assessment, although of course I accept that I could be mistaken. No one is asking you to confess to infractions that [you] did not commit to get the sanctions removed. The point I think you seem to be missing is that the behavioural issues for which you were sanctioned - a battleground mentality, personalizing disputes, not letting things go, etc - were shown by the statements and diffs from the cases, and it's my understanding that in a successful topic ban appeal you'll need to show that you're not going to behave those ways, not that you won't do those specific things. Therefore, it's my understanding that a successful topic ban appeal isn't going to involve you rebutting or refuting each and every statement in the topic ban case (ie it won't involve relitigating your topic ban). My understanding of a successful block appeal is that you'd say or show that you would abide by the topic ban.


 * I do see that my words were not precise, above, about what you're wanting to do against SMcCandlish. I've fixed that. Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 2 December 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.

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

 * Darkfrog, we are running out of ways to tell you this. Your choices at this point are a) agree that your future participation on the English Wikipedia will be contingent on staying away from the MOS and style issues, and ceasing to endlessly re-argue the circumstances of your topic ban, or b) find a different hobby better suited to your interests. A decision to topic-ban you means that an admin found that you were being disruptive in your editing on that topic, and no more. "Wikipedia" has no position on the specific motivations underlying that disruption, and there's no reason to think the admins involved ever did either; the fact of the matter is that you have demonstrated in abundance your ability to argue minutia to exhaustion, and the pattern of arguing minutia to exhaustion is itself disruptive. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm starting to see why this keeps recurring: you seem unable or unwilling to draw simple inferences from what you're told, so every attempt to restate the same thing in slightly different words gets a reaction of "I've never heard of that before! No one has ever said that! Do you expect me to just guess what you want?" You say you agree to the conditions, and I certainly believe you intend to follow your understanding of them, but show no evidence that your understanding has moved any closer to that of the rest of the community. In fact, as Salvio and Drmies point out, it seems to be the opposite. Sorry, time to decline this and reblock. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In light of, my vote is to reinstate the block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Darkfrog's behavior convinces me that the block needs to be reinstated. Doug Weller  talk 21:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where to begin? It's not even clear what is being asked. "Accusation of gaslighting by Darkfrog24"--that's ambiguous already, but we're talking about the accusation that this and other comments by DF are considered gaslighting by SMcCandlish, no? Well, I don't know about gaslighting, but if the claim by DF is that that comment is somehow the normal way in which folks in a collaborative project should interact, well, that claim is just absolutely wrong. And what else is there? Is ArbCom supposed to rule that SMcCandlish is indeed a liar? No, we are not going there. I was happy to unblock DF for this request, possibly against my better judgment given past requests, and I have no desire to see DF blocked again, but I don't know what else we can do EXCEPT for to offer 's item a, again. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After this and this, I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , we are discussing this in our top-secret hot tub-equipped location. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with OR -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems an obvious inability to drop the stick. The block needs to be reinstated.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Opabinia said it well. This appeal certainly does not make me want to revisit the topic ban; if we did, I think it would have to be to broaden its scope or consider an interaction ban with SMcCandlish. However, I agree with my colleagues that at this point I think it's time to reinstate the block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Darkfrog24
Enacted -  Mini  apolis  21:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) That's enough. This has gone on too long and is counterproductive. I think we would have given a longer appeal timer, but the "one year of AE protection" thing makes one year after the block a convenient time to review. To be very clear on this point, if nothing has changed in February then the answer won't either. The bees have to exit the bonnet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarification, yes, I intended this to mean appeal back to arbcom.
 * , I noticed your posts regarding the word "gaslighting", and frankly: your good options here involve a) saying "I now realize some people find this term upsetting and I'm going to use a different word next time to describe the behavior I mean", or b) saying nothing. A bad option is c) continuing to double down. And please just take that as advice to think about. In your head. Not out loud. Especially not here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)   Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Doug Weller  talk 05:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) kelapstick(bainuu) 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) (late, but as this hasn't been closed yet I figured I'd add this for the record) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) (late transferring comments) Would have preferred six months and a condition that the appeal be preapproved as something half legitimate, and not this mess again. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Clerk note: There are 11 active arbitrators, so 6 support or oppose votes is a majority. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Fæ (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Fæ at 11:12, 27 November 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 Fæ
''An earlier version of this query was emailed to the Arbcom list on 25 November, I have raised it here as requested by the committee.

Dear Arbcom,

I have been interpreting the remaining restrictions on my account[1], in particular "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" as applying to BLP articles in the article namespace, and excluding the LGBT+ studies discussion group, being part of the Wikipedia/Wikipedia Talk namespace, which I have contributed to several times in the past few years (as an example to the LGBT studies guidelines), or other LGBT+ related discussions in talk namespace which may refer to biographies but are not edits in main/article namespace. In addition I have created the BDP for Ramchandra Siras, being notable for the legal case Siras fought in India against his being penalised as a result of being homosexual, and continued my Commons projects almost all of which are post AD 1000 works.

Is my interpretation okay? I ask as a result of the request on 25 November, to help another contributor by setting up a proposed change to the article for the writer Milo Yiannopoulos, controversial for their anti-trans statements. Though contributing on analysing reliable sources using my LexisNexis research access, I neither made the proposal to change the article text, nor am I in any dispute with anyone, nor do I intend to edit the article. My objective was to help with the process for gaining a consensus and no more than that.[2][3] It has only occurred to me on reflection that being involved in the details, may be an issue in the context of the outstanding Arbcom restrictions from March 2013.

If I am astray and should be avoiding these discussions, in addition to not editing BLPs relating to sexuality, please do advise. My apologies if I have misunderstood how the restrictions were intended to work. As a precaution I'll avoid making any further comment on-wiki for the above proposal on the presumption that it may be an issue. I regret doing anything that may be perceived as going close to the boundaries of the Arbcom restriction, as I am planning on making a more properly thought out amendment request in a few months time, with the intention of giving more freedom to engage on Wikipedia with the results of positive content projects I am directly involved with, like m:Grants:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016, and would not want a thoughtless mistake to blot my copybook with the Committee before then.


 * Links
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6
 * 2)
 * 3) Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos

Thank you, Fæ (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to see the restrictions lifted as suggested. This was my aim for an amendment request in a few months time. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72 - 3
Respected Arbs, I am the editor who made the request for assistance in setting up an RfC or similar structured discussion as referred to by, above. I was not aware of the restrictions when I made the request, and have only become aware of them as a result of this clarification request; I would not have made the request had I been so aware. I wish to express my appreciation of & gratitude for Fæ's assistance, and for their calm and reasoned input into the discussion which provoked my request. Should the committee decide that the creation of the article Talk page discussion is within the scope of the restrictions, I would implore them to take no further action regarding it; I firmly believe that the action was taken entirely in good faith, and with intent to improve the encyclopedia. Separate to the question of Fæ's action in light of the restrictions, I would, however, express my grave concerns with the use of WikiProjects to hold "off-page discussions" on the content of individual articles. This is firmly outside the goals and scope of this, or any other WikiProject, and intersects poorly with WP:CANVASS, WP:TAGTEAM/WP:GANG. I request the committee to confirm that such discussions should take place on the Talk pages of the articles involved; augmented by discussion at the various noticeboards (NPOVN, RSN, BLPN, etc), as required. Thanks in advance for your consideration on this matter. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Fæ)
Fæ's restriction currently reads: "Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed.". I encourage the Committee to revise that to one of the following options to clarify the intent:
 * 1) Fæ is topic banned from editing BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to talk pages or to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
 * 2) Fæ is topic banned from editing (i) BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed, and (ii) talk pages of articles and draft articles covered by (i). This restriction does not apply to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
 * 3) Fæ is topic banned from editing regarding BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This applies in all namespaces but excludes automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.

I do not (at present) have a preference between the options. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The other restrictions, "Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed." and it's loosening amendment "Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee." and those relating to automated editing, all seem (to me at least) to clearly apply in all namespaces and I don't think clarification of those is needed, but appending the sentence "This restriction applies to all namespaces." would I think be sufficient if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * et al, if you do go down the route of a parole then it is still worth clarifying the restrictions so that we don't all end up back here if the parole is not successful for any reason (even though this seems unlikely). Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
Dear Arbcom, several years have passed since any edits that this topic ban was based on. Does this topic ban serve any ongoing purpose? I rather think Wikipedia would benefit if you simply removed the restrictions on Fæ.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
First a disclosure. Fae and I do not get on. Anyone with any long standing knowledge of our interactions can attest to that.

That said, the behaviour sanctioned was a wiki aeon ago. These restrictions no longer serve a purpose and doubt fae would even want to repeat the behaviours that cost him dear now. Policy on blp is much clearer and easier to enforce these days. There is no harm in lifting fae's restrictions.

Statement by whoever
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.

Fæ: Clerk notes

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



Fæ: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Thank you Fæ for bringing this here. I agree with your interpretation of the restriction (and Thryduulf's option 1): that "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" is restricting you from editing articles, but not from participating in the LGBT studies WikiProject, participating in discussions/RfCs about BLPs relating to sexuality, suggesting edits, etc. I also agree that this restriction is unclear, so we should clarify it one way or another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion below about lifting the restrictions, I would be fine with that, though I'd like to hear from Fæ just to check that this is something he wants before we go and propose anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with GW here. On Ryk's question, I don't think that's pertinent to the substance of the request, nor is it within our remit to tell people which talk pages to use. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Piling on. I agree with GW and with Or's point about which talk pages to use. I do know that in practice Wikiproject pages are often used to discuss articles in the same way noticeboards are used. Doug Weller  talk 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even more pilling on to GW's statement. That said, are considering dumping the second unblock restriction and modifying the first? Or what exactly is in play here? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to lift the restrictions as a parole --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Guerillero. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to lift the restrictions for a trial as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm wlling also.  DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Fae
Enacted -  Mini  apolis  22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  Doug Weller  talk 17:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Drmies (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) kelapstick(bainuu) 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse
 * 1) On the motion only. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Clerk note: There are 9 active arbitrators (not counting 2 who are recused), so 5 support votes or oppose votes are a majority. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Austrian economics (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 05:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Discretionary sanctions
 * Requesting that the Arbitration Committee rescind the remedy

Statement by BU Rob13
It appears that the discretionary sanctions in this topic area are no longer necessary. The last application of discretionary sanctions in this topic area occurred on October 4, 2014, over two years ago (see log). Additionally, a review of the pages most affected by the dispute that generated the original case reveals no disruption above the level expected of a reasonably "mainstream" article. For instance, Ludwig von Mises Institute was central to the case, but the article history shows only common vandalism/removal of sourced information over the past two years. The rate of disruption there wouldn't even be high enough to justify semi-protection. The community can handle this topic area without an arbitration remedy at this time. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:49, 16 December 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.

Austrian economics: Clerk notes

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



Austrian economics: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems decent enough. I proposed a motion below following the template that I used for this in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Austrian economics
Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
 * 1) Remedy 1.1 of the Austrian economics case is rescinded;
 * 2) Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
 * 3) In the event that disruptive editing resumes in this topic-area, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) why not? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Sure. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  Doug Weller  talk 09:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015
 * Request that the Arbitration Committee rescind discretionary sanctions in the topic area, as amended by the second section of the above motion

Statement by BU Rob13
Continuing with the theme of cleaning up old DS before the new year, this DS has only been applied twice since it first passed in December 2014, and only to establish interaction bans that arguably could have been handled by the community. The latest application of DS was in April 2015. Based on that alone, I believe the topic bans and other remedies in this case were sufficient to handle disruption in this topic area, but I also noticed that the defined topic area here strongly overlaps with Gamergate. Discretionary sanctions in this case cover "any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed". Gamergate covered, among other things, "all edits about, and all pages related to ... (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy". The topic area of the gender disparity among Wikipedians and attempts to correct it forms a subset of the topic area covered by the Gamergate DS. Even if discretionary sanctions are still needed in this narrow topic area, the remedy here is redundant to the remedy that remains active in Gamergate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This could also be accompanied by an expansion of Gamergate DS to all gender-related "issues" if it's thought that "disputes and controversies" don't cover the GGTF, which probably wouldn't be a bad expansion. I'm not convinced it's needed, though. I would consider the gender gap on Wikipedia as a whole to be a "controversy" of sorts. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
GGTF - at least has the virtue of making DS about gender easy to find (and, perhaps a bit easier to understand for the non gamer), that GG does not. Could you merge? 'Gamergate and/or Gender Discretionary Sanctions'? That would leave intact, tracing the history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 18 December 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.

Interactions at GGTF: Clerk notes

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



Interactions at GGTF: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not fully convinced that part b) of the Gamergate sanctions wholly overlaps the GGTF sanctions (given that not all edits about the topics in the GGTF sanction area necessarily relate to disputes or controversies), but I do think that given the disuse and the wide overlap it would make sense to remove this as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not support broadening the Gamergate sanctions to "issues". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am against rescinding, because the overlap here is only partial, and I am against replacing "disputes and controversies" with "issues" because that, IMHO, would extend the scope of DS too much. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Against the change to "issues", undecided on rescinding. I think this is one of those cases where the fact that they haven't been used may suggest they're working (whereas I usually think that's a "see, my tinfoil hat keeps the government agents away!" argument ;). There's no such thing as a "safe space" on a public wiki, but there's something to be said for a mechanism to quietly remove disruptive or tendentious participants from a discussion area specifically for a normally-underrepresented audience. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm against rescinding the GGTF discretionary sanctions as I don't believe that the Gamergate sanctions completely cover this. I agree with OR's analysis that the sanctions not being used suggests that they are working. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with OR here and oppose replacing "disputes and controversies" with "issues" --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also not happy with changing to "issues" and agree with Alanscottwalker that GGTF is easier to find. Unless it can be shown that the sanctions are actually damaging editing in the area, I don't think there's a case for removing them. Doug Weller  talk 14:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 08:41, 30 October 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 Shrike
According to WP:ARBPIA3 any edit done by new account in the area could be reverted according to ARBCOM decision.Recently I stumbled in two cases: What should be done in such case?Should they be speedy deleted according to G5 or there are some other procedure?
 * 1) AFD created by a new account
 * 2) Article
 * Your proposition is good as it clarifies that talk pages could be edited but it still didn't answer my concern about new article creation and AFDs.--Shrike (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

According to this clarification the sanction is not only about articles but about edits too and I think its good practice because it should stop socks to disrupt the area.The wording should be changed accordingly to be conclusive about every Wiki space(article,talk,new pages and etc)--Shrike (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

, I think its wrong to allow those users to create articles.The original motion was enacted because of sock puppetry.It will give socks a possibility to use this venue to participate in Wikipedia although there were banned--Shrike (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
The provisions of 500/30 allow, but do not require, edits by users who do not meet the threshold to be reverted or removed. If the edit in question benefits the encyclopaedia (I haven't looked to see if the listed ones do or not) then it seems silly to revert for the sake of reverting. At most a friendly note on the user's talk page informing/reminding them about the 500/30 restriction seems most appropriate.

For any AfD I think following the guidance at Speedy Keep point 4 is best: If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's [...] status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
As it stands now, non-extendedconfirmed accounts are prohibited from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". While we're here talking about this remedy, can you amend that to exclude talk pages? It's clear the committee didn't intend to bar IP editors from making talk page requests in this topic area, but that's technically what it's done. In a topic area like this, it's only a matter of time before some "clever" wikilawyer tries to make that argument.

I will not comment on the substance of the original issue here other than to say that, as always, common sense should be exercised everywhere on the project. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree with restricting this to just articles. I've seen extremely personal and contentious edit wars break out over the color of a heading on an Israeli-Palestinian conflict related navbox. I think this restriction should extend to templates, categories, modules, etc. Additionally, your proposed change significantly weakens the remedy from an actual prohibition on editing to mere eligibility for 500/30 protection (something that is already allowed via the usual protection policy). If the intent is just to rule out the weird talk page edge case (and perhaps project space, while we're at it), I'd suggest the following amended remedy instead.


 * 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. This remedy does not apply to talk pages or the Wikipedia namespace.


 * ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, my issue is a complete tack-on, since it doesn't make much sense to handle two concurrent ARCA requests for the same remedy. I don't have too much of an opinion about your issue, but if it's determined an amendment needs to be made to correct something about that issue, it would have to be on top of my proposed one. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the remedy is as confusing as you believe it is. I read "may enforce" as a statement of what tools may be used by administrators to enforce the remedy rather than a statement that administrators may choose to ignore the remedy at their discretion. The statement is a bit antiquated, as we now have extendedconfirmed protection as the obvious tool to enforce the remedy, but I suppose reverts are always appropriate and blocks would also be appropriate if an editor continuously hopped to new pages in blatant disregard of the remedy. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I can't speak for the Committee in terms of how they want that to be enforced, but I can speak as an administrator who has been protecting many pages related to this remedy. I don't think remedy #1 of this case is relevant here, and as written, remedy #6 in WP:ARBPIA doesn't apply either. In the past, the Committee has worded discretionary sanction remedies to specify any edit in a topic area is covered. See here. Perhaps such a rewording would be sensible here? I certainly have noticed that this conflict tends to find its way onto pages I'd struggle to confidently place within the topic area. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the statement that the ban is not optional, applying it to talk pages prevents non-extendedconfirmed editors from filing edit requests. Is this the committee's intention? ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As an aside, and assuming this makes it to motion v0.2 at least, we can easily implement "any edit" without ECP using standard warn and block. If an edit related to this topic area is made by a non-extendedconfirmed editor on an article unrelated to the topic area, an admin could alert them of the remedy. If they persist, AE block just like a topic ban violation. This doesn't need any complicated instructions or procedures from ArbCom. If "any page" is changed to "any edit" in the remedy, enforcing administrators can be trusted to use our discretion when choosing when to protect vs. handle an individual editor via warnings and blocks. This should be subject to the same talk page exception, of course. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of AfC submissions
I have serious concerns about the second exception proposed by below. I'm guessing that OR sees an allowance to create drafts and pass them through AfC as similar to a talk page exception, but there's a rather substantial difference in which editor does the reviewing. At a talk page in the topic area, editors knowledgeable about the topic area will show up. They know what to look out for in terms of POV-pushing and biased sources. At AfC, random reviewer #928 shows up, who likely knows nothing about the Arab–Israeli conflict and the POVs involved. I seriously doubt random reviewer #928 can adequately review the article for neutrality without knowing anything about the topic area. I doubt AfC will adequately screen out the POV-pushing, socks, etc. that will always be involved in this topic area, and I expect we'll be back here within half a year if this exception is approved. It's a substantial loosening of restrictions that deserves a full discussion unto itself, at the very least, whereas the talk page exception merely documents existing practices. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I think new editors in ARBPIA topics, I immediately think socks. The benefit may be the occasional good-faith new editor, but the cost is that every sockmaster in this topic area still in possession of a working keyboard is going to try to push their POV into the mainspace. I'm highly skeptical that AfC + project talk page messages can handle the deluge of nonsense we're likely to see. As an alternative, why not say all new articles in violation of the editing restriction must be deleted but are eligible for WP:REFUND into the userspace of any extendedconfirmed editor? This includes the original author if they stick around long enough to be extendedconfirmed. I'm sure there are other solutions out there as well. I think it's very telling that this restriction has been in place so long before this has come up. We have one potentially good new article in the topic area from a non-extendedconfirmed editor in over half a year. I can say with utter certainty that we'll have many more POV-ridden drafts than that within the first week if we open this door. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping : ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, while my name is invoked in Doug's support statement for his motion 2, I strongly oppose it. Philosophically, I don't believe in applying a topic ban to editors pre-emptively, preventing them from making edit requests via talk. Preventing new editors from even suggesting changes would be the most significant departure from our "anyone can edit" philosophy since the creation of Wikipedia. The idea of such a departure coming from a small group of arbitrators by fiat rather than from the community makes it even less palatable. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the Motion v0.3 from Amanda. The text is clearer than Motion v0.2, and the substance of exclusion 2 is substantially improved from Motion v0.1. It doesn't hit on the "any edits" issue yet, but Doug's point about our trend toward an omnibus is spot on. I'd rather fix a few things and get those fixes right than do everything at once and get some stuff wrong. We can always come back at a later time if the "any pages" vs. "any edits" issue gets to be very important. ~ Rob 13 Talk 08:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The intention of the second exception is to provide administrator discretion on whether to retain articles. It does not provide administrator discretion on whether editors can create them in the first place. Warnings and blocks for the editors who create the articles may be appropriate while simulatenously retaining an individual creation if it's unproblematic. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Editors eligible to be extended-confirmed"? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
Suggest amending to:

2) All  articles pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, excluding pages in the Wikipedia and *Talk namespaces, are eligible for extended confirmed protection. Editors may request this at WP:RFPP or from any uninvolved Administrator.

or similar. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind reply. I accept and agree with your comments about namespaces other than mainspace. My intent was to cover only the namespaces containing content which appears in the encyclopedia itself, and (as you rightly point out) this does include more than just articles. Share your concerns about limiting access to Talk pages. I have amended my statement above. I maintain, however, that the remedy is better phrased as a restriction on pages (with a process for technical implemention) than a restriction on editors - a topic ban, without notice, of all new editors isn't a practical solution, nor is it warranted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. I don't think that either the AfD or the new article creation are sufficiently innately disruptive as to require restriction. The AfD closed with no consensus; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive nomination. The article subject, on a cursory inspection, appears notable; so it doesn't seem like a disruptive creation. We also have well developed processes (and enough eyes) on deletions & creations which deal with disruption well. I do think that the best way to implement the intent of this remedy is for any editor to be able to request ECP on a page in this topic space (as defined above), without having to demonstrate disruption of that page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Note that the question of whether the 500/30 rule applies to talk pages was addressed here before, see the second I/P case here. (That's the page version before the case was archived but I cannot locate the archive.) The response then was that talk pages are included. However, it would not be a disaster if talk pages were excluded. On the other hand, it would definitely be a bad idea to just change "pages" to "articles", as pages like categories, templates, AfD discussions, etc, need defending just as much as articles do. BU_Rob13's suggestion is good.

Regarding Shrike's questions, I think that new articles created by non-500/30 users should be speedy-deletable, unless substantial improvements have meanwhile been made by a permitted editor. Similarly for AfDs.

Either way, dear arbitrators, please don't leave these matters for the community to sort out. Please make a decision so we can get on with writing articles. Zerotalk 13:11, 8 November 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

 * I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I believe this came up at ANI, and it was a bit of a strange case, with the HumanRightsUnderstanding account coming out of nowhere (and disappearing back into that void). In both cases I'm with Thryduulf, which means that, in essence, I completely trust the community in taking care of these issues on their own merits. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of this remedy has confused me for a while now. We say that under 500/30 edits are prohibited, but then say that prohibition may be enforced. It sounds like a very confusing signal. I've been asked quite a few times at other offwiki venues how this is supposed to be enforced including thoughts on the mass page protection of the entire area. I don't think we are being fair to throw the work to the community in this case and say figure out how it's supposed to be enforced, when we can't even be clear on how it should be enforced. What exactly that means the committee should modify or change this to...I have no idea at this time. It's worth the discussion though to me. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've just run into an odd problem at Ancient maritime history. Maybe I should be asking for a clarification. The article isn't obviously related to the PIA area, but the edit is. A new editor changed "The Phoenicians were an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coast of modern-day Lebanon, Syria and northern Israel." to say "northern Palestine". I reverted him a while ago as the coast of northern Israel isn't part of the Palestinian territories and, because his only other edits, in 2010 and 2015 were similar, changing Israel to Palestine, gave him a DS alert. Just now he's reverted me saying "Palestinian boarders never changed prior to occupation, while zionist/Israeli boarders expand by annexation and are an unreliable reference". So is he allowed to make such edits, and if he is, how is that different from editing a page clearly within the area covered by the DS? Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although User:Callanecc stated that "500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles)." the wording is still "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."  Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, rewording to make it clear that "any edit in a topic area is covered" is a good idea, as I'm pretty sure that's what we meant. As I see the 500/30 as akin to a topic ban, I'm not convinced that talk pages should be excluded. Doug Weller  talk 18:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the wording issue DQ raised, I've always read that as an acknowledgment of the reality that enforcement is never 100%, either because things slip by or because someone makes a deliberate choice to let an otherwise constructive edit slide. Of course, I don't know that last year's arbs actually meant to parse that finely. (This wasn't the part of the text that was updated earlier this year.) Last time this came up I think the general consensus was to use common sense on talk pages and in areas where editing can't be managed by technical means - ie don't throw away a new editor's new article if it's otherwise good, or revert an otherwise useful comment, but don't feel obliged to keep crap or put up with POV-pushing. If there's a preference for spelling that out in a motion, though, I'm on board with Rob's idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If we honestly do not expect full enforcement, should we not just make it clear that anything that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia is (delete|rollback|remove|block|protection|nth option)able instead of a complete prohibition that we don't want enforced? That seems to be more in the spirit of discretionary sanctions and allows it to be enforceable. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, doesn't every rule work that way? ;) The only cases where we can actually aspire to complete enforcement are policies of legal significance, and even then stuff slips by. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The may allows admins to use the tool they think is best for the job. The ban itself is not optional -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose is best served by including talk pages in the ban, as previously. But for edge cases, 's comment seems exactly right. With respect to may, the comment just above by says all that needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Doug Weller's suggestion to reword the remedy to read "any edit" is reasonable. I am hesitant to extend this protection to include talk pages, however—I think prohibiting new editors from even discussing or suggesting edits to a very broad swath of articles is too extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.1)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:


 * 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 is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.


 * The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria may make limited use of the Draft: namespace and their userspace to prepare encyclopedic material. They may not create new articles in the topic area; however, they may submit drafts to the Articles for Creation process. If an article is created by an editor who does not meet the criteria, and the article is not otherwise a candidate for deletion, it should be moved to the Draft: namespace or to the editor's userspace. Under no circumstances should this exception be used to store advocacy material, material violating any Wikipedia policy, or other content with no realistic prospect of mainspace use.




 * Support
 * In the absence of objections to this formulation over the last couple of days. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC) v3 works. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) This works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * this is better than what I wrote a year ago -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Somewhat reluctant support. I'd still like to see a way to apply this (without ECP) to any edit, not just any article. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Works for me, tho like Dough I 'd like to4 expand it ro relatedm aterial on oither paged. 1 DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhhh...what? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) I thought it was probably just me that was worried about AfC, but now that user:BU Rob13 has endorsed my unspoken concerns I am moving to oppose.  After all, we do say that Wikipedia has no deadline. It does of course mean that IPs can't create articles in this area, but that's in line with the prohibition against IPs editing in this area. The motion would have let them submit articles that they couldn't edit if they were created, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Doug Weller  talk 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Simply exception #2. Will explain more soon. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Rethinking this, §2 of the above motion, is pretty confusing to anyone who does not speak wikipedia --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Clerk note: There are 11 active arbitrators, so 6 support or oppose votes is a majority. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 08:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm active on this, but I've posted the template above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we've hit the one-month mark on this, here's a bone to chew on. On #1, I think Rob has a good point that a venue for edit requests is reasonable provided that any disruption can be squelched without too much trouble. However, I can't quite convince myself to extend the exception to Wikipedia space - we don't need more socks at AfD or ANI. On #2, I think we'd all rather that new editors not create new articles on the subject, but we have no way to inform them not to if the new article is among their first edits in the area, and once it's written it hardly seems reasonable to delete it if it's not otherwise deletable. (This is also a recurring problem with G5 in general.) I could go the other way on this.
 * I haven't included the issue of "any edit" vs "any page"; I'm not convinced there's much added value there. Those edits changing "Israel" to "Palestine" and vice versa in unrelated articles are silly, but they mostly get reverted anyway AFAICT; I'm not sure spreading this prohibition so widely across the encyclopedia, to articles where the local editors may have never heard of this ARBPIA3 stuff, is enough of a net benefit. I wouldn't mind if an edit filter could catch some of the common patterns though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does "editors who do not meet the criterion"  mean "editors who do not have extended confirmed user access" ? DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To a close approximation. We could probably just say EC and tell whoever asks for clarification about whether it applies to editors who've requested the EC right be removed, or alts of EC editors, to find something less lame to do with their time ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree on it being article space only. Given all pages should be protected it does seem a bit moot really...as they can't edit them anyway..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a particular point in saying non-extended confirmed vs. IP, Accounts < 30/500...it just sounds better the way it is, but that's nitpicking.
 * I like this clarification as it provides an enforcement venue on how to handle what falls through. My one concern though is dumping in the Draft space. 1) It still allows the article to be published as is, what we are prohibiting in the first place 2) AFC doesn't receive very much attention. So giving the false hope that it will one day be created amongst months and months of backlogs I feel isn't appropriate. Could we leave it just to the userspace allowing any other content contributor to pick it up and run with it under CC-BY-SA 3? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand point 1, sorry - there's not much difference between draft and user space for this purpose, except that drafts are slightly more convenient. Neither one is indexed, so I don't think there's any difference in terms of "publishing" between a draft and a userspace page. On point 2, I think that's how AfC often works anyway - someone can poach a draft and move it to mainspace without going through the Official Process if they want to. But you're right that it may be easier to specify that an eligible account has to move the page to mainspace, regardless of process.
 * The problem is that we have no way to actually tell a new user that they can't write new articles on this topic until they've already done it, at which point the work is done and we might as well judge it on its merits. So it makes sense to give some guidance on how to do that. If piles of socks start writing terrible articles and pestering people to accept them, then we can reevaluate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When AfC reviewers come upon an article that's clearly about a controversial subject, they often post on the relevant wikiproject talk page for help, which is as good an idea for this subject as it is for the science and medicine articles where I usually see this. And as above, if someone who is extended-confirmed but not an "official" AfC reviewer wants to deal with the article, that's also fine. (Those new article search bots are good for this, and also pick up drafts.) The underlying problem here is that there is no way to tell new editors they can't create an article about this subject until they've already done it. And it makes no sense to throw it away without considering its quality once the effort's been made. The article that started this discussion is still live and is pretty POV-y but not that bad by typical standards of new editors creating new articles. I don't see any other way to do it without codifying the unpleasant notion that it's fine to delete otherwise-acceptable content on the basis of rules its author couldn't possibly have known existed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For me, the key reason to permit draft space is to permit well controlled classes working on this area. Though its not a good topicchocie for general introductory classes, and can be for advanced ones in the subject with suitable supervision.  DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.2)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

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 is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. In the case of edits relevant to the topic area in articles (but not talk pages) not clearly related to the topic area, this will be enforced first by an Administrator placing a DS alert on their talk page with further edits handled as usual by AE.




 * Support
 * 1) with thanks to BU Rob13.  Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go with v3 now, revisit this if there are further problems. Doug Weller  talk 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I can't read that last sentence and get it through my head...and neither will a lot of other people. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with Amanda and Opabinia. It's unclear and also broader than it needs to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Prefer v3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed with Amanda and OR, plus I prefer v0.3. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Abstain


 * Comments


 * This is meant to deal with clear infringements of the sanctions within articles not obviously related to the topic area. These are fairly frequent (in my experience at least) and should fall within the sanctions. I see it as similar to a topic ban, where we ban editors from any edits related to the topic ban even if the article isn't directly related to the topic. There are 3 aspects to v.01 and I think they need to be dealt with separately. Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, v0.1 dealt with just two things; I left this one out on purpose, because it is much broader than the question we were asked in this request. This started out about an odd corner case, and this proposal hugely expands the scope of enforcement of these sanctions without really being grounded in an explicit request for such an expansion. We've all seen these edits in seemingly unrelated articles, but we haven't seen any evidence that they are specifically disruptive in a way that exceeds any other fly-by nuisance edits. This is not similar to a topic ban, because topic bans are applied to individuals who can be told in advance what not to do, while this is applied to an entire class of user who have no way to find out they're "banned" from this area. It's also putting enforcement responsibility on editing communities surrounding totally unrelated articles where there is unlikely to be much awareness of the bureaucratic details. I'm open to persuasion given evidence this is necessary - as in, evidence of actual disruption, not just examples of these edits being reverted along with the day's poop vandalism - but I'm not convinced yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13 is right, I should have confined this to article space and I've amended my proposed motion. I hope this works. It's meant to have exceptions but these should have separate motions. Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.3)
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:


 * 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 is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.


 * The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
 * Editors who do not meet the criteria are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This strikes the equal balance I think we are looking for. It doesn't send potential drafts to AFC to review and I think  on whether they consult wikiprojects is needed, but regardless it's just a venue for more drama, it gives a realistic enforcement venue, and is clear cut and to the point. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) This works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) This looks good to me too. Good job Amanda! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) works for me --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  14:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Ok. I still think that we may need to do something about editing articles that aren't themselves related to the topic area (the ones I see are usually archaeological ones where editors argue about a location), but this is an improvement over version 1.  Doug Weller  talk 14:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Still a little hesitant about the second exception, but this seems like a start. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Needs a little wordsmithing to be clearer. "Editors who do not meet the criteria" is unclear (I know you mean "who do not meet the criteria to edit in this topic area", but it sounds like "Editors who do not meet the criteria listed above"). Also I'm not sure whether I like the second exception. It says that editors who are not above the 500/30 threshold cannot make new articles, but then goes on to say that they sort of can. I of course don't want to pass a remedy saying that administrators MUST delete articles even if they're valuable, but if we do indeed want to restrict new article creation, I think there's got to be a way we can word it to be less encouraging of folks to just try writing articles and see how far they can get. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't those "the criteria listed above" (in the first sentence)? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I first read it was "Editors who do not meet the criteria [so who are not IP editors, who have more than 500 edits, or have more than 30 days tenure] may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..." I realize what DQ meant was "Editors who do not meet the criteria [that would allow them to edit in the topic area without restriction] may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area..." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, hmm... we could just say "extended-confirmed editors". I avoided in v1 because the two categories aren't quite the same, but I hope whoever tried to make that wikilawyer argument wouldn't succeed in any event. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does 's suggestion of "eligible to be extendedconfirmed" work for you? Rob, next time we're just going to make you draft ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No issue with wordsmithing it to whatever is nearby. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, see above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Clerk note: In order to reflect the plain intention of the motion, and to make the motion not moot, I have inserted the word "not" into the motion (the exceptions apply to editors who are not extended-confirmed). Please ensure that this reflects the original meaning of your vote. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * D'oh, yes, that's what I meant; thanks . Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: WP:ARBPIA3 (December 2016)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Huldra at 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 1RR restriction


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * General 1RR restriction
 * A strengthening of the 1RR rule for articles under ARBPIA: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period.

Statement by Huldra
In the  Azzam Pasha quotation,  Editor1 makes an addition, Editor2 removes it, Editor1  then makes the  very same addition a few hours later (which  Editor3 removes), and  Editor1  argues they did not break 1RR as "the first edit was an edit, not a revert".
 * If Editor1 is correct, then I would like the 1RR rule amended, so that such disruptive behaviour is disallowed.
 * (If Editor1 is  wrong, and they did indeed  break the 1RR, then I withdraw this request)


 * I have edited as if that 2nd addition was a violation, but then I have possibly been too  "conservative". (But I edit virtually only articles under ARBPIA sanctions, so better safe than sorry..)


 * I agree completely with User:BU Rob13: If Editor1  view is correct, then "Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes." I would like to add:  "...and contrary to common sense."
 * It seems to me that people here agree that this *is* a problem, but that we cannot amend it without amending the  1RR rule for everybody. (Which seems to be a large task?)


 * But if we added a sentence to the ARBPIA3, like the one in Template:2016 US Election AE: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
 * …then Editor1 could not have made that 2nd addition: problem solved.


 * What I find untenable is the present situation, where if one  editor want  to change anything, then it takes two editors to keep the status quo. To me, this is counterintuitive, Huldra (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72 - 2
I believe that the issue raised is not only limited to ARBPIA3, but is more generally applicable. I respectfully invite the committee to make general comment on "first mover advantage" in revert wars (described more fully at WP:WINWAR), particularly as applied to contentious topic spaces; and on if & how this should be addressed. I also respectfully invite the committee to examine the impact & effectiveness of the combination "1RR/consensus" restrictions applied to multiple articles in the ARBAP2 topic space. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
This is definitely a "bug" when it comes to all types of revert rules. Deference is automatically given to the position that is not the status quo, contrary to all our usual processes. The solution is to accompany all 1RR restrictions with the "Consensus required" restriction, as noted by Doug below. This has worked well on certain American politics articles this past election cycle, and it wholly addresses the issue here. This should be looked at in a context beyond just ARBPIA3. A motion amending all previous cases that currently have active 1RR restrictions to include the "Consensus required" restriction would be ideal. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an issue every time 1RR is applied for a new change. While editors may not have brought it here before, that doesn't mean the issue hasn't been encountered. ARCA isn't exactly the most welcoming or well-known venue when one encounters an issue. It would be akin to past motions made to update old cases to use standard discretionary sanctions, etc. Given that this would be a potentially large undertaking and that this would be a perfect opportunity to see if some old active restrictions are still necessary, I'd recommend leaving this decision to the incoming Arbitration Committee in 2017. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the "consensus required" restriction is still a bright-line. It's essentially a modification to 1RR. It states that if you make an edit and it is reverted, you must get consensus before re-adding it. Could you clarify what you see as the difference between pairing that with regular 1RR and adding a 1RR exemption that states original edits count toward the rule? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Providing the wording of the "consensus required" restriction for reference, as listed at Talk:Hillary Clinton: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Note that it applies only to editors reinstating an edit that moved away from the status quo after it was reverted. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Changing the definition of the 1RR rule could have wide-ranging effects. User:GorillaWarfare has recommended a community discussion. Another option is to encourage the admins who issue page-level restrictions under discretionary sanctions to try out different restrictions and see what the results are. Note that the proposed improvements to the 1RR rule by User:Huldra (above) and the one described by User:BU Rob13 to add 'consensus required' are quite different. While Huldra's rule is simple enough to be automated, BU Rob13's rule  that requires consensus could make deciding a 1RR complaint more of a judgment call. Thanks to Template:2016 US Election AE we are gradually accumulating some experience with the 'discussion required' rule, the one favored by Doug Weller and BU Rob13 though some analysis would be required to see what the actual effects are. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
The proposal makes sense, since the status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. However, I'll mention one thing about the wording that doesn't seem to have been noted: it would allow one editor to do multiple reverts in the same article within 24 hours provided they were to different parts of the article. So this proposed wording is in one way less restrictive than before. However, on balance it would still be an improvement. Zerotalk 12:08, 1 December 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.

WP:ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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



WP:ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This seems reasonable, although if a broader change is going to be made to WP:1RR that should be a community discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I interpret "1RR" as "Editor 1" here does - have (some) people in the area been treating it differently? The proposed change seems reasonable, except that we then end up with two subtly different types of restriction in effect in different areas: one where each individual can revert only once, and one in which each edit can be reverted only once. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That would sort out the consistency issue, at the cost of introducing a change in a lot of areas where one isn't expected, for the sake of fixing something that hasn't been brought to us as a problem in those areas. I'll have to look later at where else 1RR is in use as an arb remedy at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kinda spitballing here, but how about a formulation along the lines of "WP:BRD is required in this topic area"? That has the benefit of stopping one step earlier than 1RR - Editor1 would be obliged to give up or start a discussion, rather than restoring the material - and uses an already-common editing pattern, which avoids the confusion of slightly differing 1RR variants floating around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What OR said. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are meant to prevent disruption and edit wars so I can see the concern. I think normally we do interpret 1RR as Editor 1 does, although I'd like to see a community discussion on that. One way to deal with the problem now would be to add the bit about "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." although that's not problem free. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person who did the leg work for last years trim of DS, putting together the research to to omnibus motions is tiring -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We definitely need a community RfC before we can go changing the definition of 1RR. I also took a brief look at what 1RR restrictions were enforced this past year, and it seems that all would have either benefited or had no affect from the consensus required bit. In 6 areas, there could be an argument that 1RR should be rescinded with only one enforcement. Considering the use of 1RR DS enforcement is low outside AmPol & Macedonia (India Pakistan and PIA lagging a little further behind), I think a case by case application of it would be better than trying to omnibus, and remember this for future decisions. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice research, that is definitely not the pattern I was expecting to find! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never been happy with 1RR (or 3RR) because no matter how one specifies the details, it will give one side or another an automatic advantage. They are both the typical sort of WP rough-and-ready rules that only have the virtue of being a standard, abandoning  than any attempt to meet the circumstances.  A plain reliance on WP:BRD is probably wiser.It's no fairer, but it's simpler.  DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doug mentions the "Consensus required"--from what I have seen, this is already accepted practice. (I've not looked much at the ARBPIA3 articles, but I've seen this argument used in American Politics articles.) Such practice, I am all for, but I'm (always) concerned about overregulating. That's not to say I don't think that there's nothing to this request. On other hand, sure it is true that in this situation it takes two editors to undo one controversial edits, but in these areas which are by definition contentious there's typically more than two editors duking it out. In this particular case, that's what seems to have happened, and subsequent talk page discussion did not lead to an edit or other war--so while the 1R requirement led to the sketched situation, where it takes two to undo a controversial edit by one, isn't that (roughly speaking) not what happens anyway? A consensus is formed because the two reverted the one and talk page discussion didn't change that situation? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:


 * Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Doug Weller  talk 08:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments

Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms (January 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by DrChrissy at 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) DrChrissy topic banned (January 2016)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * DrChrissy topic banned (January 2016)
 * Rescind the topic ban

Statement by DrChrissy
Over 12 months ago, I was topic banned from editing "...all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted". I am seeking this sanction be lifted.

Since the imposition of the topic ban, I have remained a highly productive editor here on Wikipedia - please see my user page where I have listed articles I have created and significantly edited. It is clear I have not simply "waited out" this sanction.

To the best of my memory, I have not violated this topic ban, nor have I been accused of skirting around the ban or testing it. The protection of these articles has been successful.

The reasons I wish to have this sanction lifted are two-fold: In summary, topic bans are imposed to protect articles - I believe this has been achieved. DrChrissy (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I wish to be able to directly edit GM animal articles. I have a vast experience of animal behaviour based on my real life university position.  Many articles on GM animals could benefit from edits, some in my areas of expertise.
 * Second, I often edit animal-related articles which contain interwoven GM related content. I would like to have lifted the pressure of having to be extremely careful what I write, where I write and looking over my shoulder.

Supplementary 1
I am deeply concerned at statements made below that the GMO articles are now quiet - as if the disruption to this huge subject area has been due solely/largely to me. So, let's look at the extent of my editing in the GMO area prior to my topic ban. First, let me remind you of the scope of my topic ban. It is "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
 * I have never edited articles on GM plants, vegetables, crops, etc.
 * I have never edited articles on GMO commentators - either pro or anti-GMO
 * I have never edited articles on GMO producing or related companies.
 * I have never edited articles on companies that produce agricultural chemicals
 * I have edited several articles on GM animals, but the only one where there was controversy was Genetically modified fish. The main concern of other editors were the sources I was using.  One was a monograph written by Professor Donald Broom (who I know professionally) the Emeritus Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge.  The argument was being made this was not RS, however, RS clearly states When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.  The second concern was my use of a Mercola publication.  I accepted removal of this once it was explained to me the reason was it is not RS and did not attempt to edit war this into the article.  During my topic ban I have learned to more accurately check the reliability of sources such as using Bealle's list and not using predatory journals, vanity journals, pay-for publication journals, etc.
 * I have edited the Glyphosate (an agricultural chemical) article. This article became a major battleground among several editors, including myself.  I fully accept responsibility for my adopting a battleground and disruptive mentality on this article, and I understand a much more collegiate approach is needed for the benefit of the project.  I have been working on this change in behaviour during my topic ban.
 * DrChrissy (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary 2
Regardless of the outcome of this appeal (and yes, I can see the writing on the wall), I wish all members of ARBCOM a Happy and peaceful New Year. DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to BeyondMyKen
BMK's statement is woefully short of diffs as is requested and expected at ARBCOM. In fact, the 2 diffs they do provide relate to confusion by multiple editors about the closing wording by an admin (in May 2015), and not my editing behaviour. Neither do these diffs relate to this topic ban.

BMK also accuses me of being a civil POV pusher. I have no problem with being called "civil", but if BMK believes I am a POV pusher, they must provide evidence (diffs). DrChrissy (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to KingOfAces43
Please note that several of the diffs are immediately after the topic ban was imposed and several were attempts at clarification in the earliest stages of the ban.


 * This diff was provided as evidence, however, it relates to an I-ban, not this topic ban. The two are fundamentally different.


 * This diff was provided as evidence. This is what I wrote "Given that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)?DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)". I asked a question because I wanted to understand the nuances of the topic ban yet you seem to be using this against me. DrChrissy (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am pinging you because I added a section to my statement (Supplementary 1) which was just before your posting. It may have been such close timing that you missed it. DrChrissy (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement By Beyond My Ken
DrChrissy's statement neglects to mention some facts:


 * 1. As a result of the Genetically modified organisms arbitratuion case, which closed on 12 December 2015, DrChrissy received this topic ban: "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." DrChrissy's topic ban was less stringent that that received by other parties to the case. This was deliberate on the Committee's part, to allow him to edit about gentically modified animals.  However, less than a month later, because of DrChrissy's continued problematic editing and testing of the boundaries of his topic ban, the ban was changed by motion to read: "DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that 'DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed' is replaced with 'DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.'"


 * 2. Prior to the GMO case, DrChrissy received editing sanctions from the community. On 16 May, he was "indefinitely topic banned from editing any biomedical articles."  This, too, had to be clarified. It was modified on 20 May  to read "User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users). This modifies the close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Topic ban for DrChrissy which imposed a topic ban from 'biomedical articles'. This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months from now, and will be logged at WP:RESTRICT." and had to be modified again on 3 September 2015 "to clarify 'broadly construed' for human medicine and MEDRS", to read "User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed."


 * 3.The clear conclusion to be drawn from this is that DrChrissy cannot be trusted to edit responsibly in this topic area. Even when he received very specific topic bans, his editing required that the bans be modified a number of times to prevent his editing around their edges.  It seems obvious that if his ArbCom ban is lifted, he will return to precisely the same kind of editing that got him banned in the first place.  This is because DrChrissy is the epitome of a civil point of view pusher.  He has a specific agenda, and his edits are designed to promote that agenda and skew our articles.


 * 4.The evidence DrCrissy provides for the sanction to be lifted is "To the best of my memory, I have not violated this topic ban". This is not a reason that a ban should be lifted, it is the minimum requirement of an editor under a topic ban.  The articles have been "protected" because DrChrissy is forbidden to edit them.  To say that a reasonable response to that is to lift the topic ban is simply illogical and flies in the face of DrCrissy's editing history.


 * 5.I urge the Committee to reject this appeal to lift DrChrissy's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
It's pretty clear DrChrissy has continued the same behavior that got them topic banned in GMOs in other topics, so the topic ban is still needed. They also neglect to mention with their not skirting their sanctions comment that they actually did skirt their topic ban, which resulted in it being broadened. They also violated the concurrent interaction ban handed to them from the same ArbCom case. Unfortunately, there is a recurrent trend of DrChrissy engaging in battleground behavior, pursuing that in vexatious requests on admin boards, and moving on to other topics once they get topic banned. After all that, they file an appeal immediately after they are able to only to have that appeal rejected because the community sees even more battleground behavior that went on in other topics after the ban. Here's a snapshot of what's been going on in the last year:

Leading up to GMO ArbCom
 * Before ArbCom, topic banned from alt-med topics as part of a boomerang for their battleground behavior directed at other editors.
 * Alt-med ban appeal fails due to continued battleground behavior. (third paragraph of close gives a good summary of the recurring issues with DrChrissy that need to be addressed to successfully appeal a topic ban)
 * Topic ban and interaction ban due to behavior in GMO topics.

Since ArbCom (within the last year)
 * Warned for violating topic ban.
 * Topic ban expanded by Arbs after original ArbCom ban due to behavior they found to be disruptive.
 * Blocked for violating I-ban by delving into editor interactions in GMO topics and vexatious use of AE noticeboard
 * Tries to comment on AE case directly relating to a GMO topic.
 * Alt-med topic ban extended due to continued battleground behavior.
 * Warned for more battleground behavior where a proposal gained some traction to ban DrChrissy from admin boards due to more vexatious filings.

That's just after a quick search of summary level discussions, bans, etc. without getting into DrChrissy's actual comments (I'd run out of room relitigating everything within the last year). It's obvious they are not keeping their nose clean or acting on why they got banned in the first place. We're finally getting peace in the GMO topics (and nearly a whole month without a related AE case). The topic ban is still preventing further disruption as evidenced by DrChrissy's continued behavior documented in their other topic ban appeal denials. That's especially since it's clear they've been hanging around the periphery of GMO-related meta issues on editors' general behavior that have just been sanctioned in the topic.

I'd urge Arbs to continue preventing this disruption in the GMO topic as it's already been made clear DrChrissy cannot handle nuanced topic bans as they are requesting. That's especially with DrChrissy's pre-case actions being the straw that broke the camel's back (for eventual better or worse) that led to the opening of the original GMO case. If they have since not been able to appeal their other (and earlier) topic ban due to the same battleground behavior, that's also a good indication the more recent GMO ban should remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
Context matters, opinion doesn't. I have zero hope that anything I say here will affect the outcome of this appeal, but perhaps if someone questions the modus operandi of the encyclopedia enough someone somewhere will begin to look more deeply into how we deal with editors. The extensions to this sanction were not added because Dr Chrissy deliberately tried to skirt the boundaries of the sanctions but because the boundaries of the sanction were in the original wording, unclear. For example:

''There is disagreement about the close on 16 May of the topic-ban discussion about DrChrissy. (See discussion about it here, here and here.) Beeblebrox closed it as a ban from "biomedical articles," [68][69] and told DrChrissy that she was banned from "human biomedicine." [70] He later changed his advice to DrChrissy to "biomedical articles, broadly construed," [71] in response to a request that the ban include nonhuman animals. There was barely a mention of animals during the discussion. DrChrissy is an academic in a mainstream university who specializes in animal behaviour and animal welfare. He has written animal articles without a problem, including Feather pecking, Cognitive bias in animals, Deception in animals, Pregnancy in fish, Declawing of crabs and Self-anointing in animals. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to write about animals without mentioning health issues, and he needs to be able to write without looking over his shoulder. So the question is whether the biomedical topic ban extends (or should extend) to nonhuman animals. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC) ''

We have to be careful in saying that an editor is a POV pusher, or doesn't care about the encyclopedia as a whole because they describe a sanction in terms we don't agree with. No one says an editor has to agree with a sanction, but what we do say is that the editor has to abide by the sanction which assumes that in the first place the sanction is clearly worded. We can't accuse an editor of stepping over boundaries if the boundaries are not clear or do not exist.

As a general statement: One of the situations which occurs on Wikipedia is that we get extremely knowledgeable people who begin to edit without the background many experienced editors have. These editors don't necessarily have the understanding of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources and in attempting to add sources are treated to sometimes, and even often, nasty incivilities. Not surprisingly, newer editors can respond  by digging in. Experienced editors often respond with annoyance and, "this is a time sink". Yes it is, but this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and part of that is to use the expertise of other editors where it can be the most useful. What is always missing from these equations is the response of the experienced to the inexperienced, the disrespect shown to those who are actually off-Wikipedia experts and the ownership of a self - selected group towards certain kinds of articles. I understand there are those who are attempting to disrupt with information that biases the reader; we have to be able to delineate those from those who are learning the ropes. I probably wouldn't have responded to this clarification given the chances that anything will change this appeal not because the arbs are unfair or are not knowledgable but because the process cannot give them kind of information we need to come to a fair conclusion, and human beings, all of us, are not un biased or without our own belief systems often unknown to the owners, but today I feel somewhat fed up, not with the arbs who I always assume are doing their best but with a system that doesn't work very well.

The arbs might be better served here if they actually asked DrChrissy some questions about his editing rather than take for granted the comments here which lack context and are opinions. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Capeo
It would be a mistake to rescind this sanction. This is one of the (too few) cases where an ArbCom case and subsequent DS and ARCA's pretty much removed all disruption from a huge swath of articles. Aside from a few drive-by SPA's that quickly disappear, the entire suite of GMO related articles has been relatively quiet. DrChrissy contributes well in other areas but still doesn't seem to grasp why all these sanctions were placed on them. Their insistence that they weren't found to be pushing a particular POV, despite the evidence presented in so many arenas that lead to the sanctions, or broadening of sanctions, is baffling to me. It's something they have claimed before and something they are still claiming here. This suggests they still don't see what the original issues were with their editing, such as adding almost nothing but negative and often badly sourced material to GMO articles.

I have to note as well that Olive mentions above that many of these comments lack context. To that I'd like to point out that most, if not all, the Arbs here were presented evidence in various venues, some going all the way back to the GMO case I believe, so I'm sure they are aware of the context. Capeo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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


 * Cleaned. For the future, please use this link to file requests for amendment. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline. The need to protect the encyclopaedia from the disruption you're quite liable to cause has not subsided. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline. Sadly, I see nothing in this request that makes me amenable to granting it: no reasons are given, nor any indication of awareness of the results of past behavior. I think there is a distinct lack of understanding here, indicated also by the statement "topic bans are imposed to protect articles"--that is not their only goal. Being oblivious to one's disruptive effect on noticeboards and in discussions is a very good reason not to grant this request. DrChrissy, I'm sorry, but this won't do. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline I supported the topic ban expansion last January, I have seen no reason to lift it at this time, and am in agreement with what Salvio says. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline I also see no insight/awareness of the problems that led to the topic bans. Doug Weller  talk 16:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence (January 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Mathsci at 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


 * 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''


 * No other parties are involved.
 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence
 * That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence (August 2010)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence

Statement by Mathsci
During my appeal last year, Doug Weller corresponded with me about my voluntary topic ban from this area. It had been in force since August 2010 and has been adhered to. All restrictions were removed in December 2010, on the initiative of Newyorkbrad, but my voluntary ban stayed in force. I have not edited in this area since July 2010. Since then, encouraged by the arbitration committee, I have helped administrators and checkusers on and off wiki with sockpuppetry in this topic area. That is still happening.

I would prefer to return to the position adopted in December 2010 if possible. The topic ban, which I was first asked about in an email from Courcelles, might give administrators the wrong impression about my editing history, i.e. that I have edited wikipedia with ideological prejudices. That seems to have happened once already.

I would therefore like the phrase "This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban" to be struck from the motion, thus returning to the status quo of my voluntary topic ban.

I am completely happy with the rest of the current phrasing, which was modified from the original email proposal. This request is independent of and does not concern any interaction bans. Mathsci (talk)


 * Thanks for replying. In answer to your query, I would be quite happy for all mention of a topic ban to be removed from the motion. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The arbitration committee formulated the original version of the "topic ban by mutual consent" in August 2010 (the original case). In November 2010 Newyorkbrad suggested here that my editing restrictions be lifted . I immediately replied: "Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area." That is what I have informally called a "voluntary topic ban". Nobody asked me to do it. The "topic ban by mutual consent" was lifted on 17 December 2010. As Kirill Lokshin correctly points out, the "topic ban by mutual consent" was enforceable during the period 24 August—17 December 2010 when it was in effect. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I'm quite confused about this distinction between a voluntary topic ban and a "standard" topic ban. One may voluntarily agree to an unblock condition, but once the unblock is made, that condition is no longer voluntary. This restriction should either remain unchanged or be lifted entirely. If this editor has been as helpful as he says he has been for this many years without issue, I'm inclined to support lifting the restriction entirely. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 08:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

We've had no movement on this for a while, but everyone who's commented so far seems to be fine with lifted the topic ban. It would be ideal to close this in that direction soon so as not to leave the editor hanging for longer than the two weeks they already have been. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence reads: "Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately." So if above Mathsci requests "That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010" (emphasis added) I'm not sure whether they intend to observe a (binding/voluntary) avoidance of the topic, or the December 2010 termination decision (which holds no commitment whatsoever to avoid the topic).

Mathsci's commitment to indefinite voluntary topic bans can be illustrated as follows: in August 2016 Mathsci committed to "As I also wrote in the request [i.e.: "At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely"], I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page". Mathsci resumed editing the 2016 Nice attack page and its talk page in November. Their edits to the mainspace article and its talk page in November-December are entirely constructive and unproblematic afaics – only illustrating the "indefinite" timeframe being translated to less than four months (also without prejudice where and when Mathsci may have obtained permission to shorten the "indefinite" part of their voluntary avoidance of the topic).

The discussion of Mathsci's amendment request appears largely semantic thus far, if you ask me: translating it into a proposal free of such side-tracking semantics: Rescind the
 * The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban.

part of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2017 (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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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



Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there any particular reason why you're asking for it to be changed to a "voluntary" topic ban as opposed to it having the ban lifted in its entirety? It seems counter-intuitive to me for the ban remain in place but changed to voluntary if you believe it's still required. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 06:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Echoing Mkdw's question above. What is the point of maintaining a voluntary topic ban when it cannot be enforced? I would think we would either leave the topic ban as is, or remove it entirely. If removed, you would naturally be free to avoid that area if you wished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The original 2010 decision does not use the term "voluntary"; rather, the remedy we adopted was that "Mathsci has consented to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" (emphasis mine). There's no reason why version of the topic ban would not have been fully enforceable under the standard enforcement provisions adopted in the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While it hasn't been perfectly smooth sailing since Mathsci was unbanned, none of the issues that have arisen had anything to do with this topic ban, so I'd just as soon get rid of it. Of course Mathsci can continue to ignore this topic to his heart's content afterwards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to grant this request to have the topic ban removed in its entirety. I trust Mathsci would continue to use good judgement and avoid areas of their own free volition. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 07:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see my username mentioned twice in the filing party's request, but frankly I have forgotten the details of that discussion from more than six years ago, so if anyone has been waiting for me to chime in on this, please don't. I don't have a strong view on whether Mathsci's commitment to avoid this topic should continue to be formalized through a topic-ban or not, nor am I certain exactly how it matters, except perhaps symbolically. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Mathsci


was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Thanks to  for the reminder about this ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comments above. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Euryalus (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 7)  DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Per my comments above. I hope to see Mathsci's username in the future in mainspace and not on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments