Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 98

Amendment request: Eastern Europe (September 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Aquillion at 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe
 * Requesting removal of full-protection on Mass killings under Communist regimes

Statement by Aquillion
Mass killings under Communist regimes has been fully-protected for the past six years following an WP:AE request here. Putting aside the fact that full protection for content disputes is intended for a "cooling down" period and that indefinite full protection is not, I think, actually an available option for dealing with content disputes, most of the comments there (where there was relatively little discussion for such a drastic step) seem to support full protection for the period of one year - it has now been six. Nearly everyone involved in the dispute has long ago moved on, and while it's reasonable to assume that the topic and article will still be controversial, our dispute-resolution mechanisms have improved dramatically since 2011 - it seems silly to suggest that this article, alone, is so controversial that it needs to remain fully protected until the end of time. Anyway, I'm requesting that the restrictions on this article, including full protection, be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, as an additional (and possibly more important) point, I would suggest looking at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions and placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom - while an admin's authority in executing WP:AE is necessarily broad, I don't believe that protecting a page for six years as a means of resolving a content dispute was intended to be something one administrator could decide to do on their own, even there. If it is intended to be an available option, we need to update WP:PP to say so; but I find it hard to believe there would be consensus for that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to some of the people who argued against this (a position that genuinely startled me; I feel that this article fell through the cracks and that the idea of leaving a page full-protected for six years over a content dispute is genuinely and flatly indefensible), I'll reiterate what I said above. I don't believe that eternal full-protection is or was ever intended to be a method to resolve disputes; requiring constant re-assessment of consensus for every edit on a controversial article, in perpetuity, goes beyond what administrators are chosen for.  Obviously it can be used as a temporary method to resolve disruptive disputes, but most of the people involved in the original dispute have long since moved on, and no one, I think, has shown that the dispute is currently ongoing or that removing protection is likely to result in significant disruption (and if it does, the page can always be locked again.  And as contentious as this page is, we have since dealt with and resolved far more contentious articles and far more serious arguments without resorting to eternal protection - which part of the reason why I found the six-year-long protection on this article so startling.  Why this page and not Donald Trump, or Climate Change, or Black Lives Matter or Gamergate Controversy or Falun Gong or Israel and its numerous sub-pages?  If we have managed to resolve disputes on those pages without resorting to such a drastic measure, why do people think we can't do it here?  Yes, the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia can sometimes be a pain to deal with, but I don't feel that permanently forcing all edits to go through administrator consensus-assessment is a viable answer to disputes.


 * The arguments some people are making below seems to be that first, eternal full protection is not burdensome, and second, that this topic is so inherently contentious that the page must remain locked forever. For those who argue that indefinite full protection is not burdensome because edits can be done via edit-requests, I strongly disagree - protection by its nature discourages new and casual users (who are unlikely to understand or be able to navigate to a draft or to know how the edit-protection system works), slows editing to a crawl for even relatively uncontroversial edits, wastes the time and energy of administrators, and generally discourages people from focusing on the protected page.  And looking at the page's history, I feel it shows the damage full protection has done - the history here does not reflect the amount of improvement you would expect a page on a high-profile topic to show over the course of six years.  For these reasons and more, full protection is an extreme and draconian measure taken only to shut down ongoing disruption; I don't feel that anyone can credibly argue that there is any ongoing disruption facing this page six years on.  Some content disputes, yes, but well below the level that would require even the most basic steps in dispute resolution.  "Some people are making bad deletion arguments" isn't the kind of thing that calls for indefinite application of one of the most draconian measures ArbCom has in its toolkit. -Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
I was briefly involved on that page post-protection, and I found that trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult even for a minor point. The page does not meet our current standards for neutrality and due weight. There are good sources on the topic, that need to be accurately represented, rather than the hotchpotch that exists at the moment; but there is no realistic way to fix this. It's been long enough that I think Arbcom should consider lifting the protection. If the very idea is making some people go "Oh, heck no" then keep some restrictions to prevent the previous problems from recurring; a 1RR restriction + EC protection should do the trick. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the difficulty of obtaining consensus a sign that anything is working? Few to none of the participants in that discussion were from the bad old days; they were newer folks, like myself, seeking to improve a page. We have no evidence, really, that the folks who disrupted the page the previous time will do so again; we have evidence that there are people who wish to make constructive edits who are being hindered by the protection. Continuing the protection can almost be read as "the page as it stands is better than any version likely to occur after unprotection"; and ARBCOM is supposed to confine itself to behavior, is it not? As I said above, we could easily place restrictions to prevent edit warring; or even, as Iridescent suggests, place the page on probation, so to speak, and reprotect it if needed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current restriction does a good job of preventing editors who want the page, if it exists at all, to read "mass killings under communism are a hoax perpetrated by capitalist regimes to undermine the fatherland" or some such crap. Such folks will never reach any consensus under the current system, and that's a good thing. BUT there are others (such as myself) who believe that (for instance) if a source has been disputed by others of similar weight, then Wikipedia should present the debate, rather than one of the sources in WIkipedia's voice. I raised these concerns with respect to a single lead paragraph on the talk page; it took me about 40 talk page posts, over the course of a month, to get that edit through. Long enough that I abandoned my efforts on that page, and began editing in places where the effort:outcome ratio was more acceptable. Editor time and effort is our most precious resource. We need a more efficient way to improve the page, unless there is evidence that that will lead to previous disruption continuing. Do we have such evidence? Most of the protagonists of that previous case are no longer active. Others have topic-related restrictions. Is there evidence of disruptive posting on the talk? Only by newbies, who can be dealt with through EC protection. Is there evidence of socking on related pages? Not that I am aware of; but nonetheless preventable through EC protection. Edit-warring can be dealt with through 1RR. Draconian measures may once have been necessary; I see no evidence that they are any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nug
Keep the status quo. Looking at the page history, the current mechanism appears to be working, the article is being improved. If Vanamonde finds it difficult to build talk page consensus under the current mechanism, then it certainly won't get easier to build consensus if the restrictions are removed. --Nug (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
I'm uninvolved but wearily familiar with the Digwuren case, and would argue squarely in favor of keeping the status quo; if anything, this enforced take-it-to-the-talk-page is a remedy Wikipedia should be using often, not less. If trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult, that's a sign that the remedy is. If the protection is lifted, it needs to be on the understanding that the moment the usual suspects on both sides re-start edit-warring, either the protection will be re-imposed or that edit-warring will be dealt with by means of long-term blocks. &#8209; Iridescent 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93: The issue with this page (and others targeted by the EEML) is the presence of numerous editors on both sides who are that the status quo is so egregiously wrong that they feel duty bound to change it; if people have convincing evidence that the status quo version of the page is Just Plain Wrong they should have no problem persuading other editors of this; if they  persuade other editors of this it's a likely sign that the problem they intend to fix isn't as problematic as they think. This is one of the pages that triggered the most important sentence of WP:DIGWUREN (and arguably the most significant ruling in Arbcom's history with regards to the limit of AGF and the interaction of content disputes and user conduct issues), "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia", and there's a reason this group of pages were the battleground on which that particular decisive battle for the future course of Wikipedia's governance was fought. Bluntly, if the editors can't get on with each other enough to cobble together consensus for changes, we don't  them editing these pages. &#8209; Iridescent 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @RhinoMind You mean, like the enormous FAQ section at the top of the talk page that explains in details what the issues are, why the page is protected, and that edits to that article need to be discussed on the talk page, or the massive pink-and-red box that pops up when you try to edit the page explaining the process one needs to go through to agree proposed changes? I'm not sure how much clearer we could make this. &#8209; Iridescent 17:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I don't have an opinion about the specific page mentioned, but I do want to comment on the suggestion to "look at [...] placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom".

AE blocks are limited in duration to 1 year, but occasionally situation warranting an indefinite block crop up at AE. Wheat happens in these cases is that an indefinite block is placed, but the restrictions on modifying an AE action last only for one year, meaning a single admin may unblock on their own countenance after that point. If there is a problem with long protections resulting from an AE action that are not being reduced or removed due to bureaucracy despite their being a rough consensus that protection is no longer required, then a similar 1-year limit to AE protections would seem to be the simplest resolution. I do not know whether this is actually a problem, I have not looked, but the comments above this one suggest that if the problem does exist this article is not an example of it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * only administrators get an edit button on full-protected pages. The "big pink box" is visible to non-administrators by clicking the "view source" button - but that is not likely to be intuitive. The box probably needs to be updated though - "Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN." links to the original remedy superceded by standard discretionary sanctions in October 2011 and the case renamed in 2012. The current remedy is just an authorisation and contains no details, unlike the old one, the details being at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This is a matter for the article talk page though, where I will post shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Keep the status quo. The article used to be a regular battleground, and the fact is that "competing articles" of worse quality were the result of the compromises made. The concept that the prior discussions are now invalid is, I fear, quite the wrong way to go. Also note that some of the prior battlers are now looking here to find a means of deleting this article while not deleting Anti-communist mass killings  and other articles which are far weaker than this one. A clear case where SQA is the best result. And allowing the editors who propose on the talk page that we simply delete the article without revisiting the prior discussions here would basically make a mockery of the past solution. Note that both "quick order deletion discussions" in 2010 resulted in clear Keep results. Collect (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RhinoMind
Lockings are of course undesirable, but I do not feel experienced enough with this procedure to have any meaningful opinion on how it should be administered. But ...


 * I suggest that Full protections/lockings are accompanied by a tag on the article-front (not TalkPage) that explains that there is some kind of dispute. Otherwise lockings would just enforce acceptance of articles that aren't acceptable and readers would assume that everything is ok, which isn't true.


 * Also, I suggest that some information on the TalkPage is included, so editors are informed on how to engage with the article during a locking. ie. they present concrete proposals for editorial changes on the TalkPage, complete with proper reliable sources and all, and after a discussion a consensus (of reason and argumentation, not feeling!) might be reached with time. If so, administrators can then install the editorial changes in the locked article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No. That is the short answer. You are not considering my #1 entry. The links you posted might perhaps do it in relation to my #2, although I don't understand how you got to your link number two where the edit-procedure is loosely explained. For me there isn't any Edit-button to click in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by AmateurEditor
I support removal of full protection, but then I opposed it being imposed at the time. I also support replacing it with Extended confirmed protection and 1RR for now, as suggested by Vanamonde93. I disagree with Aquillion that the disruptive editors have moved on to other things (some of them have just changed their usernames), but I don't see that as a reason to retain full protection. Full protection of the article may actually be shielding them from consequences by freeing them from having to disrupt progress on the article via reverts and edits to the article. Allowing editing may help expose those editors by giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Alternatively, it would allow them to edit productively if they chose to do so. If anything, the full protection has given disruptive editors effective veto power through the imposed edit-consensus process and some of the good-faith editors have moved on. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
I'm one of the admins who was active at AE back in 2011 when the decision was taken to apply indefinite protection to Mass killings under Communist regimes. The filer of this ARCA, User:Aquillion, has not stated that they tried any other of the prior steps suggested under WP:AC/DS before filing here: The administrator who closed the AE and applied the full protection is User:Timotheus Canens has been recently active, and should be easy to consult. The concept that it is shocking to keep an article protected this long probably reflects unawareness of the nastiness of some of the areas that are still under discretionary sanctions. In my opinion the Mass killings article easily falls under the 'gigantic waste of time for everyone' category though some well-intentioned content editors who were very diplomatic might be able to rescue it. In part the trouble is that some people consider this an artificial topic. We have other articles on mass deaths whose existence as an article is not questioned. For example, the article on World War II casualties is about a real topic and few people would criticize the title.
 * or

In terms of actual improvements carried out during the full protection, the history indicates there were at least 23 changes made (by admins) since 1 January 2013 in response to edit requests. For another opinion on what to do (if anything), see User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging. TTAAC is one of the people who made content improvements to a draft that was kept open during the protection.

My opinion is that this article is hard to improve, not due to full protection, but due to the difficulty in finding agreement among editors. Lifting the protection would fix one problem but not the other. Instead of stasis and very slow progress, we might have constant thrashing at ANI and AE and some article bans being handed out to individuals. But then again I could be wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by T. Canens
The protection was placed following the AE thread Ed linked to because it was necessary to enforce the "consensus required" restriction previously placed on the page (by ). I see that some commenters seem to think - incorrectly - that the two are one and the same.

I don't have time to review the past several years' worth of history right now, so I express no view on whether Sandstein's restriction is still needed. However, as long as that restriction remains, I'm strongly opposed to lifting the full protection, which adds only minimal inconvenience over the restriction, and, based on previous experience, is essential to its consistent enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I was the admin who some years back added a "consensus required" page restriction as a discretionary sanction to this article. I've not followed the article for a long time and I don't know whether the restriction is still required. I don't mind another admin or the ArbCom modifying or removing the restriction as they deem appropriate. I likewise don't have an opinion as to whether the page protection at issue here is (still) appropriate. In general terms, I find it preferable to sanction individual edit-warriors rather than to lock down a page for everybody, but I must assume that the editing conditions were at some time bad enough that T. Canens and I considered it necessary to impose page-level restrictions.  Sandstein  12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
"Shine a light, and the roaches will run." Support removing the full protection and replacing it with extended confirmed protection and 1RR. Even one year is over-long for full protection. The solution to bad apples mucking up a page is to fish out the bad apples, not to make the page mostly unusable. It's already under DS, so dealing with long-term problematic editors in the topic will be comparatively easy and swift. The problem of the article being effectively frozen in a poor state and very difficult to improve is real. To the extent the topic may be artificial, that's a content matter and not an ArbCom issue. It is fixable by splitting (e.g. mass killings by the Soviet Union, by the PRC, etc., are certainly valid topics, since they proceeded from specific governments' policies, without any WP:SYNTH in play). No opinion on the bureaucracy questions about AE limits, auto-expirations, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:26, 4 September 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.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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



Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My first reaction to this request was that it shouldn't be necessary for any page on a wiki to be full-protected for more than six years. My second reaction, after reviewing the comments above and skimming the page history, is that this particular page may indeed be exceptional in which case we would presume that the AE admins are acting sensibly. It might be useful to have some input from other admins who have been active on the topic-area in general and this page in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a pretty similar reaction to NYB. At first I figured I would definitely be supporting removing full protection from a page after multiple years. After reading some responses here, and seeing that the talk page of the article is fairly active and collaborative, it might actually be an exceptional case where this is a net benefit. I'd like to hear some more thoughts, but if we do try reducing the restriction on that page, I'd like to see it come with a condition where protection can easily be reapplied if the removal doesn't work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My thought process for AE appeals which arrive at the Committee is pretty straight-forward. We (ArbCom) are at the end of the appeals process for AE sanctions, similar to case requests. Therefore, my considerations are twofold: (a) where processes followed in the application of the sanction and in any subsequent appeals and (b) was the sanction imposed a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. In this instance the answer to both questions is yes, so I !vote to decline this appeal request and recommend it that be taken to the admin who originally imposed the sanction or to WP:AE. On the topic of having a limit to the amount of time page protections (and other sanctions on pages) can be placed I'm not convinced that's a good way forward. Firstly, blocks are more contentious and have a great affect on people than other sanctions and are, generally, more difficult to lift. Secondly, administrators aren't authorised to impose some page sanctions (such as, 1RR and 'consensus required') allowed by discretionary sanctions so having them expire after a year would mean that they expire (not that it changes to allow any admin to remove them). I'd also imagine that the imposing admin, AE admins and editors at AN would be very willing to amend/lift page restrictions which have been in place for long periods of time (especially when compared to blocks). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also decline with the same concerns as my colleagues above. I agree with Callanecc that a time limit after which page protections expire is not generally a good idea and for the same reasons. Doug Weller  talk 11:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Decline The original admins who implemented the full protection and consensus required restrictions have given statements. The point of discretionary sanctions is to provide the community with the tools to handle some of our most serious and controversial areas of editing. The full protection should be removed via discussion at WP:AE, rather than ArbCom stepping in. The actual protection was not implemented by the case, rather the implementation of discretionary sanctions. Specifically on that point, there's nothing for us to clarify or amend. Mkdw  talk 21:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Decline, with the same general view as Callanecc about time length limits for protection. Some pages are going to be problems for longer periods than one year, and this is one of them.  DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) (September 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)
 * Amend, to require either: (a) moving of these items, along with the other log actions already moved, into the new DS log pages; or (b) simple removal of the entries if they are not desired in the new log pages. Preferably (b), since similar material does not appear to be routinely kept in the new log pages, only sanctions and page protections, and a few other things.

Statement by SMcCandlish
Leaving behind the notifications and warnings in the "Enforcement log" sections of old case pages, while moving sanctions and all other log actions out of them into the new log pages, has an intensely prejudicial effect against those whose usernames remain in the original case pages' log sections. It gives a strong false impression that: there was a dispute, then those specific users still listed there got warnings, and thus the dispute stopped, because those were the real and only troublemakers. The exact opposite is usually the truth, with most of these cases having a sadly "rich" history of far worse problems and sanctions (often from the case itself, plus years of follow-on disruption) that no one sees unless they go looking in the newer log pages, which the average editor doesn't even know about.

From the original decision's discussion I'll quote the following material about the logging of actual sanctions, because it applies far more strongly to pointless retention of high-profile logging of mere notices and warnings for years on end: "[I]f an editor who is not indefinitely blocked is still around in five+ years, there is a good chance the sanction isn't useful anymore, and if by chance it is, it could be re-imposed. Also, 'may be blanked' should be replaced with 'shall be blanked' ... The may language is too open-ended, it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it? Courcelles 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)" Also: "... [The change] is long overdue and will help the committee, the clerks, and the broader community keep track of what areas are under active DS, where there are current problems, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)" These goals are not served in any way by retaining misleading "scarlet letters" from 2 May 2014 and earlier on the case pages to unfairly target particular editors who were not actually subject to sanctions. "You will be maligned forever because of a random date boundary" is just utterly arbitrary, in the particular, vernacular sense that WP:Arbitration is never supposed to be.

I was previously informed (over a year ago) that these items had not been moved into the log pages (or just removed), simply because a clerk had not gotten around to it. Today, moving them was turned down on the basis that the above-cited motion explicitly excludes that material from being moved. Thus this amendment request. We really are in "it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it?" territory now, exactly as Courcelles warned.

Since DS alerts are only valid for a year, there's no point at all in retaining alert notices in the logs (on the case pages or the log pages) for longer, even if ArbCom wanted to retain actual warnings in the log (which is not presently done). From my talk page today: "The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)" So, let's just be really clear about this: People who are still being disruptive are getting a form of courtesy and good-faith relief that is denied to those who are not, for no reason but a meaningless dateline.

Some of the intent-and-effects issues that were not resolved in the original motion weren't resolved at that time simply because of a desire to avoid making decisions "on the hoof" or "too quickly". Two-and-a-half years is plenty long enough.

PS: I have not listed any of the "affected users" as parties, despite the instructions in the amendment request template, because that would be tedious, a long list, and likely have a canvassing effect – there would surely be unanimous agreement from them that they don't want to be scapegoated for life over wrist-slaps that happened years ago. [I have, however, linked the usernames of the admins and [ex-]arbs directly quoted, which should ping them when I save this.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 9 September 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.

Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Clerk notes

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



Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Given the age of the notifications currently left on case pages (more than 2 years old), I wouldn't have a problem with them just being removed and replaced with a link to the central log (as is in the case page template). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that having the case pages include three-year-old notifications, but omit current ones, creates an undue weight problem. This set-up has confused me in the past, and if it confuses me then I'm sure it confuses others who spend less time than I do on the arbitration pages. I don't have a strong view on the best fix so will defer to others on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the change seems reasonable  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (September 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)


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


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


 * [diff of notification Username]
 * [diff of notification Username]


 * Information about amendment request
 * Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)
 * 4) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
 * Stricken on appeal.

Statement by Hijiri88
I would like to appeal this topic ban. I have been on my best behaviour since the ban was put in place, and have never violated it. I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats, that led to the original decision, and believe I have sufficiently reformed and made amends. I have also been doing my best to create content proactively despite the fact that the TBAN covered most of the topics I have a sufficient knowledge to edit in.

I have written a fair few articles on classical Chinese literature (see here and especially here). The problem is that writing on these topics is much more difficult for me than writing on classical Japanese poetry, which I studied in college and have access to an abundance of materials on, and can even visit and take photos of relevant historical sites associated with the poets (not something I could do without at least a week's vacation and air fare for poets from China). Also, last year during Asian Month I worked very hard to get just five articles on Chinese poets out over the course of the month, but the previous year (not during Asian Month) I had comfortably created 13 decent articles on Japanese poets in a single day. (None of these articles had anything to do with the Arbitration case, nor did the vast majority of my earlier contributions to Japanese culture articles.) And even though my French is not what it used to be, I have access to sources and am generally aware of the topic area, so that I found it easier to write articles on Japanese topics for fr.wiki than articles on pretty much anything else on en.wiki. One of them was even drafted in English.

I really love writing articles for Wikipedia, and I would really love to go back to editing articles in my main area of expertise. And I promise that I will not engage in the kind of behaviour that led to the 2015 Arbitration case again.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm required to notify the other parties -- am I? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was holding out on explicitly commenting on Callanecc's proposal, since I would (obviously) prefer an unconditional repeal to a suspended restriction, and wanted to see what the other Arbitrators would say. But I am absolutely open to the suspended restriction as proposed, and would welcome the chance to prove my character. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I pinged one Arbitrator and he pinged two more, but I still haven't got an answer about whether telling Nishidani on my talk page what my post-suspension article plans are (the Kakinomoto no Hitomaro article is pitifully short and practically unsourced, plus some other stuff) would be acceptable now that the suspension of my ban seems like a near-certainty.
 * But for that matter, how long should I expect to wait for this to be closed, my ban formally suspended, and the six-month clock to start counting down? The motion passed seven votes more than a week ago and thus far has unanimous support, and while it would be nice to be able to say that the suspension of my ban received unanimous support from the entire Committee, I've kinda been putting my editing on hold for the last week (28 mainspace edits in seven days is well below my average) based on the assumption that my ban would be suspended imminently, and that, given that, drafting Japanese stuff off-wiki would be more worth my time than the other stuff I've been doing.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey
"all pages relating to Japanese culture" was drastically overbroad from the beginning, and Catflap has since been indeffed. If this restriction was ever really preventative, it has long since ceased to be so, and now only prevents Hijiri from making his most useful contributions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Hijiri's originally problem was excessive page argument, justified somewhat by the fact that many of the pages he (and I)edited were worked by ill-informed trolls - several of whom are no longer with us - who appeared incapable of understanding the cultures, something of which Hijiri cannot be accused. He is a very useful Asian-pages editor, with close attention for high quality sourcing, something somewhat rare. He has in the meantime given evidence that he is producing good work on the areas outside his ban. I see no reason why his ban should not be revoked. All that is needed is a reminder not to get caught up in arguments: make one's point, adduce sources, and exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Schonken. Bring the diffs and make sure they are not stale. Secondly measure the putative NPA remarks at boards against the huge content contributions Hijiri makes(at Li He, for example, from 5kb to 50kb). I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis. You have an impressive musical knowledge, and that is invaluable for Wikipedia. We are talking about an editor with an impressive knowledge of East Asian cultures and whether he should be allowed back to edit on those topics. Both of you have been characterized in the past as persistently disruptive. Hijiri knows I have taken him to task more than once some years ago for excessive pettifogging. I see no sign of that now. Once editors start to 'profile' others for the usual etiquette/disruptive behavioural problems, the encyclopedic construction of Wikipedia is needlessly compromised. The vice of these arbitration issues is to get so caught up in personal bickering, that what an editor actually does in contributing quality material to their areas of specialized competence is lost from view. One should never wear grudges, esp. over trivia. 3 editors with strong competence in the area of Japanese articles (all of whom have had  tiffs  with Hiji) think his return to them would be a net positive.


 * The diffs you mention relate to a few brief comments Hijiri made in an extremely long thread where several reputable voices thought you disruptive. I have no opinion on it other than noting that what Hijiri stated was a variation on what several other editors were asserting. To pick him out for echoing what editors of high standing affirmed is not convincing.
 * The second diff refers to his differences with John Carter. I have amicable relations with both Hijiri and John, and again will not take sides.
 * Behaviour is problematical if there is a well-documented pattern: there is no such evidence for this (so far) regarding Hijiri's contributions for the last 9 months. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih
Since I have been active in WP:CHINA and WP:JAPAN, I am an admirer of the content creation by in East Asian topics. It can be a very contentious field with only very few experienced editors dealing with users pushing for WP:NPOV agenda. I can understand the frustration that led to the problematic behaviour. My recent interactions with the editor have been mostly positive, with only small remnants of the excessive/emotional arguments that was the scope of the original ban. After two years of relatively constructive editing, I am very supportive of lifting at least the topic ban on pages relating to Japanese culture at this time. Alex ShihTalk 13:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken
I disagree Hijiri has been on their best behaviour in the last year. I recall receiving some insults (which I let go in an ignore PAs logic), possibly a late reaction to me closing one of the numerous Japan-related ANIs Hijiri was involved in. Will look up the diffs if needed, but have no time right now. If modified, the remedy should rather be broadened to various sorts of obstructive behaviour, and certainly not rescinded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia (and others): was working on it. Let me first state clearly that as far as I'm concerned Hijiri doesn't deserve all that much editor time (including mine). The editor has created and contributed to time sinks ad libitum. I'd like that to stop. Which was the gist of my ANI thread close I alluded to above (and regarding which current arbitrator Drmies accused me at the time of not being severe enough against Hijiri and the editor with whom Hijiri was having a dispute then). After which Hijiri popped up at ANI again, and again, and again, absorbing quite a lot of editor time (their own and that of others, at ANI and elsewhere) that could have been spent much more productively elsewhere. So allow me to be as brief as possible.


 * 12:33, 25 January 2017 — As far as I can recall Hijiri's last insult directed at me. Within the time frame of "the last year". Accuses me of gaming, which I take as an insult. Hope I'm permitted to take that as an insult, so I didn't respond to the PA. Re. "I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction" — Indeed: I'm a prolific editor on Bach-related topics: the diff above is taken from a long ANI thread on a Bach-related topic, which an admin attempted (unsuccessfully) to close as a "morass", and to which Hijiri had contributed profusely with their "petty sensitivities", without any regard for evaluating editors for "what they actually do in encyclopedic construction", far beyond the point where their aspersions had already been rejected multiple times. So I no further reacted to Hijiri in that thread: would have been counterproductive. But illustrates how Hijiri has a knack of never stopping to amaze others how for them "petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction".


 * Looking up the diff above I came across Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944, which resulted in an IBAN involving Hijiri, decided 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC), which is also within the "last year" timeframe, and illustrating Hijiri not being on their best behaviour in that period. The previous point can, as far as I'm concerned, be ignored (I was just illustrating that my memory hadn't played a trick on me).

Here's what I propose: originally Hijiri couldn't appeal to an ArbCom remedy before a year had passed. Maybe amend that provision to read that Hijiri can not appeal an ArbCom remedy before having stayed out of trouble for the period of a year. "Staying out of trouble" being defined as: no new sanctions levied against them, whether they be community-imposed sanctions or ArbCom sanctions. Maybe apart from "staying out of trouble" defined thus, also a restriction on Hijiri initiating new ANI postings about editors with whom they're involved in a dispute. Something like an "automatic boomerang" every time Hijiri plays that trick might be considered. Note that that directly connects to what I wrote in the closure of the ANI thread I closed a long time ago (and which I mentioned in my OP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. Nishidani's suggestion above that no evidence has been brought to this ARCA request regarding disruptive behaviour patterns by Hijiri for the last 9 months: true. I have no clue whether such evidence can be found or not. Seems extremely unlikely I would go looking for such evidence (see my "time sink" and "doesn't deserve all that much editor time" kind of comments above). Anyway, when there is none of such evidence brought to this ARCA, my suggestion above simply translates to Hijiri waiting another three months before filing a request to be liberated from Arbitration remedies. Could live with that, without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, the six months "suspension" transitional period, as in the proposed motion, is as good as (maybe even better than) what I proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants
Every time I'm confronted with the fact that Hijiri is subject to a topic ban, I'm surprised anew. I've noted him to be a bit tenacious (note that's "tenacious", not "tendentious") on talk pages, but only in situations where another editor was (deliberately or not) engaging in behavior that might justifiably be called "infuriating". In all, I've found Hijiri to be a damned good editor. I've worked with Hijiri in the past, and even butted heads with Hijiri in the past, and never encountered any behavior which I would consider to be indicative of someone who might benefit from a TBAN. Furthermore, Hijiri clearly has a great grasp of Japanese language and culture (a minor interest of mine; I don't claim any great expertise, but I can certainly recognize expertise) and would be a great boon to those pages. In the interest of improving the project, the best thing we could do with this TBAN is end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  00:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just took a look at the diff and archive link provided by Francis above me. The "insult" linked is quite clearly anything but (it is an argument, not an insult), and the IBAN was not only voluntary on Hijiri's part, it was actively encouraged by him to put an end to what was some unarguably hounding behavior on the part of John Carter. It's also a little surprising that an IBAN was the only outcome, as several users commented on some highly questionable (read: explicitly blockable) behavior on the part of John. I'm guessing the fact that Hijiri was so amenable to an IBAN is the only reason John Cater escaped sanctions in that thread. I couldn't find a single editor defending John, and only a very small number of editors criticizing Hijiri specifically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * pinging Arbs and the clerk  to Hijiri88's most recent question. Apologies if any of you were aware already or didn't want a ping for whatever reason. Or if I pinged anyone inappropriately.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Concur with the above (aside from Francis Schonken on some stuff, covered below). I encounter Hijiri88 regularly, and the editor is not at all disruptive or otherwise problematic on Asian culture topics or elsewhere, in my experience. What happened over Japanese poetry was a momentary blip, and even if some restriction were kept, it should be sharply narrowed to address the specifics of the case, not "Japanese culture" generally. I find it hard to credit that Hijiri88 would be disruptive in that topic area, going forward. The lesson appears to have been learned, and there's no evidence Hijiri88 is habitually intemperate or obsessive.

Francis's concerns seem very localized to a couple of specific disputes (about which I'll take his word), plus a distaste for Hijiri's ANI activities. The former seem like a personal dispute that's pretty old news at this point, though it is within the year. Two diffs don't really seem to establish much of a pattern, though. I don't spend enough time at ANI to have much of a pro or con view on Hijiri's entries there; almost everything at ANI that isn't addressing a WP:NOTHERE troll, vandal or COI matter seems like a waste of time to me, so it's difficult to conceptualize a scale of deplorable through fantastic behavior or style there. I do have to question the idea of banning an editor from one of the prescribed dispute resolution forums/methods. Anyway, I encounter Hijiri88 through normal content editing, and policy discussions, and their input has been constructive in my encounters, though occasionally emotional, as with many of us. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Updated to account for Francis's later materials. 00:36, 22 September 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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



Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm definitely willing to reconsider this restriction. I'd be leaning towards suspending the TBAN for 6-12 months (during which time it can be reinstated by any uninvolved admin) rather than removing it outright. However, I'd like the diffs of the comments mentioned by before I make a final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Callanecc. Francis, I would probably have been more persuaded if you'd just waited till you had the time to post with actual evidence. Now, the expectations have been set high. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with lifting this restriction. I am not convinced by Francis Schonken's evidence, not at all. Having said that, and this is water under the bridge, I think Catflap was punished overly harsh. They committed a TBAN violation, and made a stupid remark about it, which was (in my opinion) misread as "bragging" in the AN discussion. Catflap, IMO, was here to improve the project, but the ArbCom case imposed such a narrow restriction on him, a restriction I still think was unfair (a link to take down the rabbit hole), and that put Catflap in a corner from which they saw no way out: the only topic they edited on Wikipedia was taken away from them. We might as well have banned them in 2015. All this to say no, this wasn't "bragging"--it was a kind of desperate cry. And if we look back at this now, and we see Hijiri having rights restored (mind you, I am all for it), we should consider that perhaps we could have two knowledgeable editors working in their own fields, instead of one. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion


Enacted -  Mini  apolis  22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Per my comments above, I don't find the statement from Francis enough to rule out suspending the topic ban (especially as opposed to lifting it outright). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this. (I'll leave a rumination in the discussion section.) Drmies (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Hijiri88 deserves a chance to demonstrate their good-faith. This motion allows the community a means to respond without restarting a painful process, should it not work out. Easing of restrictions in steps is a cautious way forward and one that still allows Hijiri88 to engage in editing the areas they are interested in. Mkdw  talk 21:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this. Doug Weller  talk 12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support.  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth a shot. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially familiar with User:Hijiri88's content editing, but I will defer to the consensus that he should be given another opportunity to contribute in his area of expertise. Frankly, I think this will be a better use of his talent and wikitime than extensive participation in noticeboard threads where he is not a party, a context in which he is clearly well-intentioned, but sometimes tends to distractingly monopolize the discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain/Recuse

Amendment request: Sexology (November 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Fæ at 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology
 * Remove transgender issues, or separate transgender issues from paraphilia, as a discretionary sanction, should the evidence show that sanctions on trans articles are still required.

Statement by Fæ
The case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology was over four years ago. The committee seems overdue to revisit these topics of discretionary sanctions as they lump various modern, appropriate, and non-controversial LGBT+ articles with topics of "abnormal sexual desires". The template that is being used on recent articles of wide interest like Danica Roem, offensively lumps articles about trans people and trans issues with hebephilia. As I would hope Arbcom is sensitive to the difference between gender and sex, Arbcom's own rulings must make that difference clear, in order to avoid unintended downstream outcomes, like the template text "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), including this article" which makes it seem that Arbcom and the Wikipedia community does not understand there is a difference between transgender and paraphilia topics in terms of controversy.

In the four years since the Sexology case, the Wikimedia project landscape and community understanding of LGBT+ topics has changed a lot. For example we now have a well established Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, who may be approached for suggestions if Arbcom would be helped by an independent user group view, Wikimedia has officially funded diversity events and LGBT+ editathons, Wikipedia policies have head-on tackled respectful treatment of trans related articles and biographies, and the quality and variety of LGBT+ related articles has significantly expanded to the public benefit.

I request that Arbcom formally recommend that the current implementation of the Sexology case (2013) is revised so that LGBT+ related articles are treated with respect and sensitivity, even if discretionary sanctions are in place and a template is needed. Further, and possibly within a longer timeframe, I request that Arbcom now review the evidence for Sexology case section 4.1 " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia)" and if the evidence demonstrates that there is no reason to believe the topic of "transgender" is a battleground, to remove the topic of transgender, until a further case with recent evidence of this being a locus of persistent disruption is brought to the committee and a separate ruling may be made.

I confirm I have an interest in the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group as an active participant and at various times have represented LGBT+ interests at Wikimedia conferences, but this does not represent a conflict of interest and neither was I a party or participant in the case. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum WRT evidence - After writing this request, it was only after Newyorkbrad's comment that I realized that the Manning case was relevant. The statement in the Manning case added to the Sexology DS with "For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." As a previous administrator I never enforced a DS, and so not thought to check the Arbcom enforcement log. The log shows that there have been three enforcements of the Sexology DS. All were related to the Chelsea Manning article discussions and the article move, and all are over four years ago. In Wikipedia terms, four years with no enforcement is a very long time, especially when the single locus of disruption requiring enforcement was one article, not transgender or paraphilia articles more generally. There is no evidence apart from opinion, that the Sexology DS have been effective or necessary on any articles apart from Chelsea Manning in the last four years, or that use of the controversial would not be as effective to minimize disruptive behaviour, as history appears to show for paraphilia articles. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , yes the template can be improved to be more respectful of LGBT+ articles as you suggest. It's a technical change that would not happen without Arbcom permission as it relies on an exact Arbcom statement.
 * However it remains sensible, and in my view necessary, for Arbcom to amend the original case wording as that wording reflects statements made during the case that incorrectly conflated sex and gender. Not only should the implementation of sanctions be respectful of LGBT+ people, but Arbcom members would probably agree, that they should be seen correctly to maintain the wording of old but active sanctions, to stay in line with current guidelines and best practice, such as MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GNL or WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. Most editors contributing to LGBT+ topics, will understand that the current wording in the case is disrespectful for trans people. To avoid confusion, I use "trans" as a shorthand for transgender, non-binary and genderqueer. Hopefully as part of the evidence for this case, Arbcom will take note that the sanction as currently written does apply to all these interrelated queer gender topics but not heterosexuality or bisexuality.
 * A thoughtful review by Arbcom may take into account how strange it looks to the outside world like there is a fundamental presumption that, without needing any evidence basis or re-assessment, transsexuality and transgender articles must be handled as battlegrounds but not other sexuality or gender articles like lesbian, homosexuality or bisexuality, and oddly many paraphilia articles such as paedophilia, zoophilia or paraphilia have happily managed without this sanction being applied in the years after the original case, finding sufficient.
 * Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * per suggestion, a minimal change to the template wording is at User:Fæ/sandboxG without implying any change to scope. Splitting the topic would make it easier to amend or withdraw the discretionary sanction on trans related articles, such as all related biographies, when the subject is no longer to be considered a battleground by default. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The list you gave is incomplete, probably due to the way the template is being used with varying syntax. This regular expression search provides 26 matches, and even this search may not be every possibility. Double checking may be wise. Checking this list, there are no paraphilia articles using the template. All 26 matches are trans related subjects and of those 11 are biographies for transgender individuals, not all living. --Fæ (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WRT separating the discretionary sanctions into areas. There are two areas. The two are as the wording at User:Fæ/sandboxG proposes, i.e. "transgender" and "paraphilia" articles. A comment by another editor suggested the topic of Sexology should be subject to discretionary sanctions, this was not included in the original authorized discretionary sanction, so Arbcom would have to make a ruling without examining any additional evidence to support the change. This would be a potential source of disruption as it would mean that any article including "science" about any type of sexuality would be subject to discretionary sanctions, for example Sex education, Women's history or Masculinity. I believe this would be a dangerous and unenforceable Arbcom ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fæ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the suggestion of superseding with the equivalent GamerGate DS. Yes, agree this would be a good way of rescinding the Sexology DS. Reviewing the GamerGate case, the DS are not just equivalent but the way that the "Sanctions available" section is written is more helpful in encouraging administrators to try other remedies in the dispute resolution toolkit before resorting to DS. This can be read as encouraging the use of other templates and improving existing guidelines such as TRANS? to help all users understand how and why trans and non-binary biographies have specific guidelines which reflect publishing best practice. This approach would encourage avoiding automatic application of DS unless there is first some evidence of disruption. As an example, I created A.W. Peet last week, and the non-binary template seems sufficient to inform contributors without appearing threatening; so far there is no disruption, and I'd rather we keep to a presumption that these biographies can be maintained with a light hand and good faith.
 * As a side note based on the nature of GamerGate, LGBT+ interested users asking for advice or support with off-wiki channels like those created and maintained by the WM-LGBT+ user group are not part of a non-neutral shared agenda. Anyone with doubts is welcome to comment on the goals of the user group, or join those channels and help with positive discussion for the benefit of our projects. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by bluerasberry

 * Support Like the proposer I am a member of Wiki LGBT+ and I heard about this issue through the discussion list there. I do not know the scope of this problem but I can confirm that in the case of Danica Roem, a biography of a person currently prominent in the news, there is no reason for their talk page to have a notice about sex crimes. Somehow the ArbCom sanctions are having the result that typical biographies are getting a notice of regulation for some link to crime, which was never the intent of the original sanctions. I agree with Fae that amending the sanctions to distinguish LGBT issues from sex related crimes would address the problem. Typical LGBT+ related topics should not be the subject of sanctions, and instead, only the fringe controversial issues addressed by the original sanctions might be.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other people are sounding out saying that transgender topics should be under sanctions. That is fine with me, so long there are multiple templates, and the transgender template is separate from language about sex crimes.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I got a comment in another channel that paraphilias are not sex crimes. This is accurate, but in this case, we are talking about paraphilias which either are sex crimes or otherwise activity with which no normal person wants to be labeled. Use distinct sanctions so that there is no appearance of associating a positive topic unnecessarily with a negative one. There is an old narrative that LGBT+ people are sexual predators against children and the bureaucratic process here has inadvertently made this association. No part of these discretionary sanctions make it necessary to indiscriminately post a notice linking LGBT+ topics and sex crimes on all sorts of LGBT+ themed articles. Just generally for ArbCom, if there is a sanction on a topic, do not add an addendum that sanctions apply "related to [whatever] and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia)", even if some sex thing has some connection to the topic under sanctions as is often the case.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Alternative solution proposed: A different template. Either a) a general sexology DS template that doesn't get into specifics, or b) separate templates for paraphilias, for LGBTQI issues, and for sexology as a discipline, to forestall any further dispute and offense caused by them all being lumped together. They were correctly lumped in dealing with disruption about them, as having a similar base cause and nature, but they're not properly correlated in any other way.

Oppose the proposed original solution, because the TG-related articles are still subject to a lot of problematic editing, and the DS should remain. This requester's proposal would throw the dispute reduction baby out with the bad template wording bathwater. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To respond to : Agreed with your general thrust but want to address two things: "these are all the articles with this tag" – there should be many more of them, namely all the articles in the affected categories. That doesn't amount to much work and isn't an argument against splitting the templates more topically and applying the correct ones. "[I]t's strange that this tag has not been used on hebephilia or paraphilia despite those being mentioned in the wording; rather it seems to have been used nearly entirely on articles related to trans individuals or trans topics" – Yes, but this should simply be corrected.  What's probably happened is that a) someone who cares bothered to do it for some high-profile TG articles, then stopped, b) no one bothered with the rest of the affected articles (in any category) when the case was new, and c) the paraphilia stuff hasn't aroused much controversy lately (though may well do so again, especially since many people disagree that paraphilia is really "a thing"; the DSM definitely changes over time, and the concept "paraphilia" lumps together various unrelated things that have different bio-psychological and social roots), so no one's been inspired to tag those articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC); copyedited: 16:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: 's comment about this having only TG and paraphilia scopes, not sexology in general (in response to my suggestion of a three-way split), I have no objection. I took it at face value that sexology was included, given that it's in the case title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: 'Do we want to copyedit for clarity by adding "(but is not limited to)" after "includes, – I would advise it. One of the most frequent forms of WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING behavior I encounter is stubborn pretense that "includes" language, or any series of examples, is exhaustive rather than illustrative. Encounter this near-daily in policy interpretation discussions at RM, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Umimmak's further clarification suggestion. Shut off every gaming/lawyering loophole we can predict, or people will drive wedges into them. The entire reason we have cases like this is wedge-driving to begin with, so don't leave exploitable cracks. This is one of those WP:Writing policy is hard things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
I agree with SMcCandlish's suggestion to split out three DS templates. It seems to me that that would fix the very annoying issue at hand without requiring substantive changes to the original case. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Funcrunch
I agree that transgender issues should not be lumped in with paraphilia issues in a DS notice. However, I feel strongly that transgender-related articles should remain under discretionary sanctions. I witness disruption on these articles constantly. Therefore I would support a separate DS notice specific to trans issues. Funcrunch (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
As Fae mentioned above, gender and sexual preference are independent. Wouldn't it make sense to separate transgender templates from lesbian/gay/bisexual templates? Would a sexuality template and a gender template fix these issues? --DHeyward (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Umimmak
I was the editor who initially alerted WikiProject LGBT studies about this issue.

I'm not really convinced by the argument that it would be too much work by as claimed by. From what I can tell, these are all the articles with this tag:


 * Transphobia; Gender identity; List of transgender people; Cisgender; Transgender rights; Trans man; Genderqueer; Transfeminism; Caitlyn Jenner; Kellie Maloney; The Wachowskis; Questioning (sexuality and gender); Travesti; Transgender; Transsexual; Trans woman; Chelsea Manning; Andreja Pejić; Laverne Cox; Death of Leelah Alcorn; Andrea Jenkins; Danica Roem


 * Bernard Kerik, which is tagged as pa for reasons unknown to me.

Note that none of these articles are about "paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia)"; aside from Kerik, all of these articles are about transgender individuals or topics.

None of the other "areas of conflict" are about such disjoint topics, so this one stands out. And even if you clarify that the topics are "clear it applies to both areas independently", there's no way to prevent it from affecting connotations and building on harmful stereotypes.

Umimmak (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re 's suggestion to just rewrite it to be entirely about trans topics, I would also hope the tag code would change from  to something else if this is done to make it less opaque. (I remain neutral as to whether to remove or just rewrite.)


 * And thanks for catching my list was incomplete, ; the search function still confuses me at times. The point still stands that, as you have pointed out, it's strange that this tag has not been used on hebephilia or paraphilia despite those being mentioned in the wording; rather it seems to have been used nearly entirely on articles related to trans individuals or trans topics.


 * Umimmak (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re and 's suggestions to explicitly clarify "included but not limited to", it might also be worth also explicitly mentioning non-binary or genderqueer individuals (as per how how  grouped them together in their comment above)? Some people have a narrower definition of what it means to be trans and might object to DS being on those pages, but presumably the same sort of disruptive editing  says is still very much present would arise on those pages as well? Though right now I see, that, the talk page for Asia Kate Dillon has the "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed" DS topic. And perhaps Template:MOS-NB is sufficient for such pages. I don't have a strong opinion but it might be worth discussing? Umimmak (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I think the best way forwards here is a two-step process. Step one being to replace the current DS authorisation and associated templates with ones covering the three separate areas which collectively cover the same scope as at present. If any topics fall into multiple areas then they can simply be noted as being covered by all that apply and any sanctions necessary can be applied under whichever is more appropriate to the individual circumstances (there is precedent for this - a few years ago the Operation Flavius article was covered by both The Troubles and Gibraltar DS areas, I placed a sanction under the former as that was most relevant to the specific disruption). If there is any disagreement about which of the three topic areas a given page/category should be in then this should be taken to an appropriate noticeboard or wikiproject talk page, with placing it in multiple categories being an option.

Step two is an optional review of whether the DS topics are still required, and a request to the Committee if removal is desired. This should wait until after the migration is complete and any discussions about categorisation have concluded and should examine the topic areas individually as the answer is not necessarily going to be the same for all of them.

This should eliminate the problems initially noted while not throwing out any babies with bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexology: Clerk notes

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


 * If I've understood correctly, the problem is that the notices (TP notices, DS alerts etc) connect transgender and paraphilia in a way that makes it unclear which applies to the specific articles the notices are being used on. Is that right?  If so, could we not solve this by just editing Ds/topics to split the current   code into two distinct codes, one for transgender issues and one for paraphilia issues?  I think this could be done as a clerk actions without a need to modify the underlying sanction.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexology: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd like to hear from other editors, but unless there are convincing arguments against such a change, I believe we need to amend the earlier sanction as Fæ suggests. I still see vandalism on transgender issues so I'm not convinced that we should remove them entirely from sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also awaiting further input, including on (1) whether discretionary sanctions are still needed, and (2) if so, whether the scope should be narrowed and/or the wording modified. Note that historically, the application of discretionary sanctions to transgender issues was initially passed in the Sexology case but was also reaffirmed and clarified in the Manning naming dispute case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an editor who supports keeping the current scope of sanctions, but splitting or revising the templates, could prepare a specific proposal (i.e. the specific proposed new templates or wording)? If you mock up the proposed templates, feel free to do it on a page in your userspace and post a link on this page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced by the argument that the current collection of topics shouldn't be handled together in a single notice, but I'm not sure about the best solution yet. I share the impression that there are still a lot of problem edits on trans topics and it may be safer to keep them under DS using a different template. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with OR - splitting the template seems the easiest solution. I've also said before I think we have too many topic areas under DS; but given ongoing vandalism these two areas aren't where I'd start to argue for a reduction. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to the purpose of splitting this into two decisions? Practically, it could create extra work in the future if one or both of these issues becomes contentions again. For example, it means the retagged of articles and that editors will probably need to alerted again (or twice) in the future. In additon, admins already have discretion to issue sanctions in a smaller area than is authorised, and even if the two topic areas are split, admins can still issue sanctions across the two topics. Perhaps a better way forward is just to reword the entry at Ds/topics/table to make it clear it applies to both areas independently. I think people might be reading a bit too much into the two topics being conflated in this remedy. It's not the Committee (then, now or future) making any comment that the issues are equated with each other. Instead, it's the Committee (then) identifying, in the Sexology case, that these two topic areas were/are contentious and that both came up in the same case. Having said that, I'm minded to remove these discretionary sanctions completely given that the last time discretionary sanctions have been used was three and a half years ago (and that was reinstating a TBAN which had expired). Before that, in 2013, they were only used in relation to the Manning dispute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting 's comments that the practicality issue isn't as significant, I'd still be more willing to either remove the discretionary sanctions altogether or change their scope (rather than just split them). Given how they've been used in the past, I'd be looking at removing paraphilia from the remedy and having them apply only to transgender issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thik that's a reasonable approach.  DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexology: Motion
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is amended to read:




 * Support
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) In favour of option 2 I proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks Callanecc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * NYB's copyedit is fine with me. As for the inclusion of nonbinary, genderqueer, etc., I had that thought when I read the motion, and then thought "No way anybody would be dumb enough to think those topics don't apply and actually pull off making that argument." OK, I'm probably wrong on the dumb part, but here's a diff to point to if anyone tries it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We could always do "transgender issues, broadly construed" to cover other areas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That works. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Ditto Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) With the understanding that we could always revive the broader scope of sanctions by motion if it proves necessary&mdash;which I hope it will not be. Do we want to copyedit for clarity by adding "(but is not limited to)" after "includes," or is that already obvious? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it wouldn't hurt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments from arbitrators
 * Just letting you all know that I've made the two changes I noted above. Also, while you're looking (plus and ), the discretionary sanctions in the GamerGate case include "any gender-related dispute or controversy" do you think that would adequately cover this area? In other words, should we just rescind the discretionary sanctions in the Sexology case as redundant to the GamerGate sanctions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Doh! What was I thinking? I always use GG sanctions for this sort of issue. So yes, rescind the sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 12:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexology: Motion 2
Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected.

Enacted - Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Moving to support this one. With the change in topic area in the first motion, it becomes redundant to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" in the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. Clerks: if and when you enact this, please include a note in the header of the collapse box of the discretionary sanctions in the GamerGate case (which may apply to the topic area). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Hadn't thought of this, but now that you point it out, this is a good solution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) As my comments above.  Doug Weller  talk 07:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Equal preference with motion 1. If we go this route, I recommend that we add a cross-reference to the related decision that remains in effect, so that someone doesn't misread this as meaning that there are no DS in effect at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) First choice. Agree with NYB re cross-referencing. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) I suspect we'll be dealing with this again, but OK for now.  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Comments from arbitrators

Amendment request: Indefinitely blocked IPs (December 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nyttend at 14:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


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

Statement by Nyttend
Per WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should almost never be indef-blocked. I found these two IPs at Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs: 190.140.234.59 was blocked in 2008 for evading a ban placed at Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli (the underlying account is no longer blocked), and 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB was apparently attempting to distribute child pornography when blocked in 2014. Unless you believe that these two are likely to warrant re-blocking, could they be unblocked? No point in notifying them ("hello IP, are you still going to be disruptive?"), but I'll notify the admins who blocked them. Please note that this not a complaint about anyone; I would have asked the blocking admins and not come here, but I know that an admin shouldn't revert an arbitration block even if he placed the block himself.

PS, would the Committee please direct one of the checkusers to tell us what IPs, or IP ranges, are being used by the bots operating on WMF Labs? Back when we had the Toolserver, Toolserver IP told us to indef-softblock the Toolserver IPs (bots often edited logged out), and that's likely no longer needed. I filed a quick SPI request for the IPs in question, but inexplicably this request was treated like a privacy-violating request for checkuser on a human, not a request for technical assistance with the WMF servers.

Statement by BU Rob13
It's worth noting that is no longer banned, so the indefinite block on 190.140.234.59 isn't even relevant anymore. That one can certainly be unblocked. The admin which blocked it,, is active. He can revert his own AE action. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, the relevant ArbCom motion only prohibits undoing an arbitration enforcement block done by another administrator. (Beeblebrox won't be able to undo the ArbCom block, though, which presumably had the support of the Committee at the time.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And in response to the PS, see my further explanation of why I declined that CheckUser request here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rlandmann

 * I'm happy to remove the indef block on 190.140.234.59, although, the way I read the ArbCom motion linked by Rob13, so could any other admin, since if Stefanomencarelli is no longer blocked, this is no longer "an active arbitration remedy" (emphasis mine) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 29 November 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.

Indefinitely blocked IPs: Clerk notes

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



Indefinitely blocked IPs: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The first of these blocks is an AE block, not an ArbCom block, and can be unblocked by anyone at this late date. I expect the second can also be unblocked at this point given the dynamics of IPs, but please hold off until I get confirmation. I'll leave the last paragraph of the request for someone more CU-savvy than I. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the first IP. Stand by regarding the second IP. I support Rob's comment at SPI that checking a random bot would be inappropriate. Looks like you're working with DoRD on other IPs which have been used by toolserver in the past. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the second IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with unblock of second IP, given passage of time. Their advocacy was pretty obvious, if the same user still has this IP they'll be spotted soon enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I cautiously support unblocking . They were only active for one day back in 2014 and have not remained active since. Given the serious nature of their editing topic, I think they could be unblocked with some monitoring for a short duration. Mkdw  talk 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Kingsindian at 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).


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


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


 * [diff of notification Coffee] -- see below
 * diff of notification The Wordsmith


 * Information about amendment request
 * 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.
 * Rescinded. The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template.


 * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
 * Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Statement by Kingsindian
[To clarify, I have included as a party because they have in the past acted as a steward for 's administrative actions.]

I am not sure this is the right venue, but I think it is. I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment. The situation is as follows:

In May 2016, created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.
 * The template has been used in the past as a "default" template for American politics topics. For instance, says here: FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in 2016 US Election AE [template]; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required.
 * Some admins do indeed explicitly want to enforce the "consensus required" provision. See the AE request here, and the comment by.
 * The value of the provision is, let's say, contested. I can give my own view here, to make it clear where I'm coming from: it's a very bad idea.

I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so.

The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want.

"Consensus required" is bad (optional)
My argument hinges on two points. First, consensus on Wikipedia is mostly silent and implicit; indeed this is explicitly enshrined in policy. Second, any bureaucratic provision must prove its worth if it is to be imposed. I will now expand on each of the points.


 * 1) How do people typically handle disputes on Wikipedia? Some person writes something, someone else objects, the first person rephrases, the second person is still unhappy, a third person rephrases it etc. Talk page discussions are also commonly made concrete (and sometimes productively cut short) by someone using an explicit phrasing on the article which all sides can live by. To be sure, this outcome can be achieved by a schematic discussion on the talk page: people writing out explicit phrasings on the talk page, opening RfCs, polling people, incorporating suggestions and so on. Indeed, I have done plenty of this sort of thing myself. But this requires a fair bit of work and co-ordination, and a degree of good faith which is often missing among participants in political areas. All I am saying here is that mandating such a work-intensive and time-intensive procedure is counterproductive. Existing rules are adequate to deal with long-term edit warring: indeed WP:ONUS is well-established policy.
 * 2) The provision has never proved its worth, nor have its proponents given any measure by which its worth could be measured. Regardless of the claims of its proponents: of the provision being a "bright line" akin to 1RR, consensus in Wikipedia is often not a bright line. Besides, consensus can always change, based on new information. In practice, the provision has led to interminable and bad-tempered arguments (including, but not limited to, admins enforcing the provision), and essentially nothing else. For instance, in a recent AE complaint, even the person who brought the complaint under the provision thought that the provision is bad but, they said, since it exists they'll use it. Then come the retaliatory AE requests, making a reasonable argument: a dumb provision should at least be applied uniformly. This situation is, to put it mildly, not ideal. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The instructions on the page state: Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions). Did I read them wrongly? By the way, this has already been discussed on AE, and the discussion didn't go anywhere. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, I am only asking for the "default" template to not carry the "consensus required" provision (and a simultaneous tweaking of the 1RR provision). If ArbCom (and admins at AE who may wish to weigh in here), feel that it ought to be dumped completely, that is also fine with me. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be unsatisfactory, because: (a) the 1RR tweak I described above would not be implemented, which is definitely not ideal and (b) the pages already tagged with the template wouldn't be changed. If these two aspects are addressed, I would have no objection. In general, I will wait for a few more comments from Arbs; if they feel that AE is the best venue, I'll withdraw this and refile there. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I agree that this should be at WP:AE. ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by L235
The main problem here appears to be that the template containing the "consensus required" provision is the only one available for administrators to use for ARBAP2 sanctions. However, there is no decision by ArbCom mandating the use of the "consensus required" provision or that template. Would it resolve your request if I created an ARBAP2 talk notice template that did not include the "consensus required" provision? (Perhaps this template could also have "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.") That way, administrators could still make the conscious choice to choose to use that provision on a case-by-case basis, but documentation should note that the other template is also available. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:13, 27 November 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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse in order to give statement. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This looks like something which would be better at WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee will generally only intervene in arbitration enforcement decisions where there has been an abuse of process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're correct that AE decisions can be appealed here, however traditionally ArbCom has only decided to intervene when AE admins haven't followed the rules. To clarify are you asking that the Committee remove the consensus required sanction completely? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought. As I said, I suspect you won't get much from ArbCom, but I could be wrong. I still think, though, that this would be better placed at AE for another discussion (which hopefully will end with action this time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless or  have anything additional comments, I would also be inclined to suggest WP:AE as a better venue. It would probably be handled more directly. Mkdw  talk  21:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Betacommand 3 (December 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Opabinia regalis at 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3


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


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


 * [diff of notification Δ]


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3
 * This request serves as the appeal referenced in the linked remedy.

Statement by Opabinia regalis
Δ (formerly Betacommand) was banned in the Betacommand 3 case, which closed in February 2012. The decision contained a provision under which he would develop a plan for editing as part of his appeal, and the committee would offer this plan for community review. This ARCA should be considered the community review component of the remedy. The text of Δ's appeal is as follows:

Comments are invited from the community on whether this appeal should be granted and what, if any, restrictions or modifications to the proposed restrictions should be considered. Community members may wish to review the following recent discussions: the "Public Appeal" section on Δ's talk page and this advisory RfC. It is not necessary to repeat details of posts made to the RfC. (Note that Δ has been unblocked to participate in this ARCA only.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Δ
I am going to keep my responses to the point since this section will probably get fairly large.

I have outlined ~6 month editing plan, I don't have my notes handy but I will dig out the details for you. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My planned activities are fairly limited at this point to minor gnoming (fixing issues that I come across), refreshing myself with the culture and policy shifts since I was active. Documenting and addressing issues with the tools currently on the toolforge (aka WMF labs). Examples of future edits: I will be fixing issues like  where google is listed as a publisher when in reality it is University of Manitoba Press,  cases where reflists have too few/many columns, and similar gnomish stuff. ΔT The only constant 01:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I purposely avoided the term simi-automatic because I don't want to get into what is and isn't a "pattern" of edits. I also wanted to have specific, definable rules. In the past claims about simi-auto/pattern edits have left me at a he said/she said argument because the only way to defend against those claims is to have a camera over my shoulder recording my screen as I make every edit. By limiting the wording to automated we set a clearly definable and clear line. If we wanted to specifically call out dis-allowing AWB, that wouldn't be an issue. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions. ΔT The only constant 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposal was not meant as an exhaustive list of past issues, but rather to acknowledge a few issues that several users brought up that I may not have fully acknowledged to their satisfaction. I left out the elephant in the room, assuming that I was addressing it mostly in the restrictions proposed. Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different. By avoiding NFC enforcement I will be eliminating most of the contentious areas, while it will allow me to respond and help users on discussion pages such as MCQ. By prohibiting automated edits I am limiting the bot issue that has been raised. I was assuming that AWB would also be prohibited without actually making that explicit in the proposal. I avoided going into the simi-auto category because it is a very grey area on what is and isnt simi-auto editing. (Depending on your scope of reference tools such as CharInsert or FormWizard, enabled by default, could be considered simi-auto). As I said above the issue also comes into play when proving/disproving accusations. Because of previous restrictions and the issues with those wordings there where debates on what is and isn't considered a pattern. Given a large enough sample size of edits a pattern can be extrapolated. People have asked for evidence that I have changed, without being able to contribute it is difficult to establish said evidence. I have been contributing to non-WMF projects and have been assisting enwiki users off-wiki when my help has been requested (Most recently fixing and getting bibcode bot back in operation) Due to privacy issues I am not going to point to those projects so that evidence is non-admissible. To put things bluntly and to try to keep things simple: I know I fucked up in the past, I have made some bad decisions and now I need to overcome those.


 * There have been several request for me to list my socks, looking at what notes I have the two accounts that I have used to edit enwiki since Betacommand 3 are  and . I do currently have an account that I use for read only access to enwiki, so that I can use the watchlist feature, do some exports and occasionally view the source of a page to copy or for technical reasons. I use that account to avoid triggering the autoblock feature which just causes issues. That account has zero edits to enwiki.
 * 02:30, 20 November 2017‎ User:Δ (omitted signature added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) at 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC))

Question by Alanscottwalker
The above Appeal speaks of a previously outlined "limited editing plan", would the committee or clerk please explicitly append that to the above Appeal, for clarity sake? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the banning policy requires Arbitration bans to be appealed to the committee. That is the standard procedure, it does NOT have arbitration bans appealed to the community.  The only wrinkle here is that the adopted appeal remedy has an extra step of presenting the appeal for community comment (I gather because there was much controversy). Under current policy, the arbitration committee cannot convert an Arbitration ban into a community ban, as you argue. The committee can lift the Arbitration ban or limit the Arbitration Ban.  The community will have to enact its own ban, if it wants a community ban and a community appeal, as you request. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No. By Community policy, it is explicitly not "up to the community," (at least not that part of the Community that is not the Committee).  By Community Consensus as addressed in policy, an Arbitration Ban is committed to the the Committee to decide, to impose and to lift (not the general community) -- it fell to the Committee precisely because the rest of Community could not/did not/would not settle the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, no, I read it fundamentally differently, as I said above -- all that provision is, is that the committee will take public comment on the appeal/modification, when it is made - that is the reading that accords with policy -- they will then make their decision but if the public comment offers nothing useful or partially useful (or just muddled statements), they can like any committee ignore it -- the only difference here is, unlike other times, where the committee does not take public comment prior to making their decision. I think there are pros and cons to taking public comment in this manner at all, but as a committee they are certainly free to do so, and it is exactly like comments from Users at any other arbitration page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Statement
 * For what it's worth, I am uninvolved, but this whole thing (not at all from 2011) is - trying not to over-state - wiki-horrifying. The lack of conscience displayed there by "" is not just a wholly nasty/underhanded attack on a single User (Dingley), but everyone who had the misfortune to fall into that conversation became compromised -- more importantly, the very basis for every other good-faith user working together (all of us) is shredded there, and there is only one User to blame, Werieth.  Good luck to the committee . . . grouping for words that convey any conclusion, all I came up with was, nonplussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley
I oppose this unbanning. Although seemingly not mentioned here, was another highly active sock in 2013–2014. I encountered them then, and found them so problematic just of themself that it went to ANI. It soon became obvious that they were also a Betacommand sock. A variety of ANI ructions ensued,, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5, User talk:Arnhem 96, User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_5 et al. This ended with me blocked for refusing to accept Werieth as a gf editor (I thought they warranted indef blocking for their own attitude, let alone the obvious socking), and a group of admins who clearly supported Betacommand so much that they were happy to proceed on this basis. My blocking admin sought an indef block of me and described me later as 'I consider you to be de facto banned'. When Werieth was finally blocked as a sock it still took appreciable time before I was most begrudgingly unblocked as the issue was now 'moot' (i.e. they'd still been right to block me), rather than any sort of apology for actually having been right all along.

There is no discussion in this unban request of Betacommand's support amongst this handful of admins. If they were blocking other editors to support him when he was blocked, what are they going to get up to if he's restored?

I also question the GF of an unban request that can't even acknowledge their past socks.

Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Headbomb raises ROPE in the comment below. But who will Betacommand's supporting admins want to hang with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb
The plan is sound, curtails the past problematic behaviour, and my interactions with Betacommand/&Delta; in the past years have all been very positive and productive. Give him the WP:ROPE, he'll be under plenty of scrutiny from the community. It's a rather easy thing to re-block if he misbehaves again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum, I'd like to add I'm entirely fine with and supportive of the 'MASEM restrictions' below, so to speak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
Oppose unban, for all reasons outlined at the advisory RfC recently, and for this unsatisfactory unban plan. "I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking)" And, umm, the actual reasons you were banned in the first place? The problems didn't arise out of the socking or out of incivility, it was the actual editing that was too often the problem. Plus what Andy Dingley said; an unban plan should at least list the socks, not just some vague "I have socked" statement. Fram (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Where I was in life in 2011 vs where I am at now is drastically different." The problems (we know off) ended in 2014, not 2011. Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Andy Dingley's statement summed this up very succinctly for me: "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour." Those of us who lived through the years of ongoing drama caused by Beta won't soon forget the turmoil they caused. No person is completely irredeemable, but the worse the editor was, the more they flipped off the community, the higher the bar is for their return, and I cannot think of many banned editors for whom the bar is higher than it is for Beta. I think we would require much more in the way of assurances and protective restrictions then are provided for here to allow Beta to even dip his toe into editing again. Further, the idea that an unblock plan which includes Beta's being allowed to use bots (even delayed for 6 months) is one that will pass community muster is totally unrealistic, considering it was bot editing that was at the root of Beta's problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
Support the unblock request, though I would also suggest the plan include the use of semi-automated tools (AWB, etc.) among the six-month ban on bot use. Beta's identified the two big areas that caused the problems in the past - NFC enforcement, and bot tools. Nearly all the problems related to behavior was related how editors confronted Beta about these actions and Beta's inappropriate responses. Keep Beta out of NFC and automated editing and that takes away 90% of the problem. The rest has to deal about editors with grudges against Beta (which can be seen above already), and we should expect that Beta should be civil in face of hostility (though taking cues from how the current sanctions regarding interactions for TheRamblingMan should be taken, so that editors are not purposely taunting Beta into mis-action). --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I support the unblock request and I would support Masem's restrictions as well. I am sure that if you unblock, there will be editors with sharp eyes ready to pounce if there is a CIVIL or NPA or BOT violation. As such, I think the risk to the encyclopedia is manageable versus the potential. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
I know Arbcom say they don't want material from the RFC being repeated here, but I'm going to regardless: I don't believe he even understands he was so disruptive, let alone any kind of indication that he won't go back to his old habits at the first chance. Why are we even entertaining an unblock request when he's lying in the unblock request about why he was blocked? The absolute minimum I'd be willing to accept to even consider shifting my position from "keep banned forever" is a total and permanent (no "after six months" or anything else of the sort) ban on automation, anything to do with copyright and anything to do with deletion, and even then I'd be reluctant. Wikipedia's willingness to give second chances is laudable; when it comes to a sixteenth chance (or whatever we're up to now) for someone who every single time they're given another "final chance" immediately goes back to what they were doing before, less so.

Statement by CBM
I'd like to refer to a longer comment I wrote to Arbcom in 2011 about codependency, which is still completely relevant. The cause of the editing restrictions, arbitration case, and ban was not violations of CIVIL nor the use of sockpuppets (although those are also issues). The cause was the inappropriate use of automated edits over a period of years, often related to NFC, and a refusal to change or stop those edits in light of repeated feedback.

Nothing in the wording of the appeal suggests that a different pattern would emerge if Δ were allowed to return to editing. Indeed, I don't see any strong reason why he should be allowed to return.

However, if there is a desire for yet another chance, it should involve a complete recusal from all aspects of NFC on wiki (no discussing NFC in any on-wiki forum, including his talk page, no assisting with others who do NFC maintenance - a complete recusal). And there should be a complete recusal from all bot-related activity for the indefinite future, with no schedule for ever becoming a bot operator. The appeal as written is an appeal to continue the cycle of codependency which was only finally broken by a complete ban from the wiki. Nevertheless, if the ban is lifted, I fear that we will again see Δ either ignore or game his restrictions, rather than to take them to heart and avoid any possible appearance of breaking them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to the question by Newyorkbrad: if the committee is dead-set on allowing Δ to return (which I think would be a mistake), the key issue to consider is that Δ has never shown an interest in moderating his own edits. There is no chance he will be productive in NFC or bot related areas, and a complete and total prohibition from these would be essential (i.e. a hard edit limit in terms of pages per minute, no discussion of bots or NFC on any page, and no NFC enforcement in any namespace, indefinitely). The pattern in the past has always been to ignore restrictions as much as possible, and to game them or claim they were too vague when they could not be completely ignored. Unfortunately, in the current appeal Δ still seems to claim that the issue was with vague restrictions rather than with him not making an attempt to keep within the restrictions he was given. Similar editing behavior should be expected if he is unbanned. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to several arbitrators' comments: if this appeal is declined, I hope you will consider setting a fixed time period before the next appeal can be made. As Mkdw writes, this process has required significant time and effort from the community. While everyone should have the ability to appeal, frequent appeals are not likely to help anything, but they take up even more time and energy, and cause even more frustration for everyone involved. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at history, if &Delta; were unblocked, a re-block would have to go through several lengthy ANI/AN discussions, which would drain even more energy from the community. Somehow, the theoretical principle that "re-blocks are easy" runs into practical challenges with bot operators compared to graffiti vandals. There is a close analogy to the problems with re-blocking chronically incivil editors, I think. The reason that several bot-related cases have made it all the way to arbcom is because they are not always easy to resolve with ordinary blocks. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID
Per the above two comments. To be more explicit about Andy Dingley's comment above, Betacommand has been overtly and covertly protected/supported by members of the admin corps. Even if he did return, at some point he will cause problems, and then editors like Dingley will end up paying the price again. I cant see a future where his coming back ends well for anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
I don't believe I was on or atleast around when all of this occurred or ended however looking through the various cases I have to agree with Andy "Betacommand is too toxic an editor to be let back. There is no evidence that they have changed their behaviour.", I'm all for second chances and they may well be a reformed character however judging by the amount of crap they caused I honestly don't see any net positive in unbanning them, However as I said I wasn't all that around so I don't know as much as those above but from my reading of it all I don't see any positives in unbanning them, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
This was an enormously problematic editor. The way to minimize problems is to minimize enormously problematic editors. There are plenty of other Wiki projects for them to volunteer at, they don't need to be here. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
Per and, the whole circumstance is such I can't support. I can understand why some might feel Beta is getting special handling here, and it does look that way to me. No unblock statement should be accepted that doesn't first acknowledge the original and ongoing reasons it has been kept in place. This just has the odor of backroom discussions to me. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ealdgyth
I'm not seeing here where Δ is actually addressing the issues which they were banned for in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Specifically - they willfully violated the terms of their community imposed sanctions. They "often performed tasks without approval from the community", "often saved edits without reviewing them for problems", and "often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time". To be fair, this appeal does mention the incivility problems, but it doesn't really address how Δ plans to improve that issue. The other three problems are not addressed at all. I'm not seeing any explicit recognition that they tried to deceive the community with the Werieth account. And allowing them to participate in NFCC discussions is just plain insane. As for the possibility of running a bot account - no. Just no. It would take years to get the community trust back enough to allow them automated editing. And I'm not seeing how this appeal is actually any improvement on gaining the trust back, given the problems that are swept under the rug that I've listed above.

And these are just the problems with this appeal from the third and final ArbCom case, it doesn't even begin to delve into the problems ignored from the community ban discussions (for both Δ and Werieth) as well as the two earlier ArbCom cases. (And as a freaking aside - why in HADES do we allow user accounts with symbols? It's a royal pain in the ass to have to either type the unicode, type the wild keyboard equivalent, or copy-paste some character just to be polite and address the user by their current account "name". I wonder if Δ's use of the symbol is not some unconscious "finger in the eye" to the community as well...)

And Δ's own statements above do not help the matter. "For those who want a complete topic ban for both NFC and bot related areas, I see that as overly broad. The issues in the past have been with NFC enforcement edits, not the discussions. Similar point can be made in regards to bots, issues where with the mass editing not the discussions." Uh, no. There WERE problems with the discussion style - see the findings of fact 2.2 from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Yes, I do think a "broad" topic ban as a good idea. Yes, I think it should be permanent. Δ - you still do not see how out of touch your ideas of your own editing is with community norms. Until you can learn to listen to what the community is telling you, you will keep having issues. Learn to edit without bots or automation. Learn to accept the fact that your own self-evaluation is not how the community sees your editing and that you need to change how you behave. All I see from this set of suggestions is that you want to return to editing the way you were before you were banned. That isnt' going to fly with the community and you need to internalize and accept that before you have a hope of re-earning the community's trust.

Statement by Ivanvector
No comment on the unblock request.

I request that the Committee rescind remedy 3 of the Betacommand case, and permit Δ to submit future unblock requests per the usual community processes as generally defined in the banning policy. The remedy as stated shrouds the process behind the veil of Arbcom, which can make it seem to the community that the Committee is failing to respond to unblock requests when in fact none was submitted, and which led very recently to an embarrassing circus of an RfC featuring a number of long-tenured and well-respected members of the community behaving like petulant children. That should not be allowed to happen again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize that. Still, Arbcom should not be creating situations like this where ban appeals from some users have to be submitted in some prescribed format which differs from policy and varies from case to case: it creates unnecessary confusion and leads to the sort of conflict we saw a month or so ago. There is precedent for Arbcom doing whatever it feels appropriate in any situation, which has left a long history of various users being banned with a whole spectrum of different and sometimes unusual conditions; I made a list in the RfC to illustrate that problem. In this case in particular, the condition that Arbcom has to green-light an appeal before it goes to the community anyway just seems like unnecessary red tape: it's ultimately up to the community anyway. Arbcom should either lift the ban or not, or else step away and leave this for the community to deal with, and I don't see any reason in this case why the community is incapable of doing so. Arbitrators are supposed to be, well, arbitrators, not prison wardens. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

you're right about all that, except for the "not up to the community" part. Remedy 3 states, in part: I read this as indication that the Committee intends not to act without the community's endorsement, thus this is an arbitration ban in name only, and functionally a community ban. If it's not up to the community, then what is this ARCA? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I do think it would be a good idea for the Committee to establish something like a "standard provision" for arbitration bans, which simply refers to the appeal process in the banning policy (including revising that policy, if necessary). Ideally this would also allow for revisions to those processes to apply retroactively (say if we brought back BASC, or something) so that we don't have "old" cases like this one hanging on to an outdated process. Adding extra language about community input (or about whatever) breeds the sort of confusion evident here: did Δ submit an appeal? did it meet the prescribed format? what is the prescribed format? et cetera. I don't really see any reason why all arbitration bans and appeals can't be handled through a common process, I suppose excepting cases involving private info, but even in those cases the Committee has always been pretty good with transparency within appropriate limits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
I edit-conflicted with Ivanvector, who said it better than I did and with whom I concur completely (other than I lean toward favoring some kind of loosening of the restrictions, per WP:ROPE – perhaps a provisional unban with a prohibition against automated and maybe semi-automated edits), so I won't re-state essentially the same stuff in other wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend
I don't believe that unblocking with restrictions would be appropriate. If I remember rightly (and based on what others have said), most of Betacommand's blocks have arisen from restrictions that were imposed on him. Whether he's persistently violated those restrictions, or whether his opponents have persistently gotten rid of him through specious complaints, I can't say (I've not looked into it at all), but permitting Betacommand to edit with restrictions virtually guarantees that we're going to have yet more disputes over his editing restrictions. If he can be trusted to edit properly, drop the restrictions; if he can't be trusted to edit properly, leave him banned. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
This editor has been blocked for many years - a punishment that exceeds the crime. He means well, has continued to he helpful, and I've got enough AGF to believe people can grow in maturity and wisdom in 5 years. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I read a lot of material going back years which refreshed my memory and I strongly oppose allowing this person to return to editing. I have many reasons but one sticks in my mind. This person blatantly and flagrantly lied to the community about their Werieth socking. Had they told the truth when asked, Andy Dingley would not have been blocked. I see not a shred of contrition and I can never trust a person who lies like that without a detailed acknowledgement of past misconduct and a sincere pledge to avoid all past problem areas. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender
Editor (A) demonstrably cannot be trusted, and (B) is highly toxic and disruptive. Under no circumstances should ArbCom unban the editor. If the editor still insists on somehow appealing the ban, if push comes to shove it should only be put to the community at large. But ideally the request should just be shut down. No matter how much good an editor may have done at their best, if the mountain of evidence proves they are by far a net negative and cannot be trusted, the answer has got to be no, for the sake of the encyclopedia and for the sake of the community and its individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by LindsayH
I believe in the possibility of people changing as much as anyone; i also, however, find it hard to believe that, in the absence of evidence, this editor has changed. Legacypac has it wrong: This block is not a punishment, but a way of preventing further turmoil and damage; there is no reason to believe that that turmoil will not continue if Betacommand is unblocked. Andy Dingley says it succinctly and best: A toxic editor should not be allowed here ~ at least until he shows some signs of understanding and accepting the behaviour that led him here; the misleading, at best, request is not such a sign. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by David Eppstein
The unblock request shows no recognition of, contrition for, nor promise to avoid repeating some of the most problematic behaviors that ended with this block, including both abuse of automation and deception leading to the unfair block and almost-ban of another productive editor. Unless these issues are addressed I think an unblock is premature. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
There seems to be here only what I can term as a conspiracy theory. The notion that there is some cabal of admins have misused their position of trust to protect this user. This should be ignored in regards to whether to unban him or not. If this is true then a separate case at the appropriate location should be opened to review the facts pertaining to these admins actions and where applicable remove them from this position of trust.

I don't find it unreasonable to ask Δ to further address their actions beyond a generic comment such as I have made mistakes in the past (CIVIL, socking). In addition some of the addendum's suggested such as as the prohibition of using certain specialized semi-automated tools like AWB that provided any bot like behavior that would allow him to do any disruptive action is a similar nature o their prior bot related disruption. I have to say no at this time without the above.

In principle I can support unbanning this user. In the end they can always be banned again. This is from 2012. I question what it would take from those who have said no to unban his user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Δ)
Having refreshed my memory about why Δ was banned, I firmly oppose unblocking based on the current plan. As others have also noted, there is no acknowledgement of the relatively recent socking, no list of socks, no acknowledgement of the disruption caused, no acknowledgement about the fundamental reasons for that behaviour, no demonstration of how they have changed and how they will avoid causing further disruption, and no reason why he should be trusted this time after betraying that trust so many times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv
The remedy in Betacommand 3 requires Betacommand not only submit a "plan outlining his intended editing activity", but that he should also "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". It appears that Betacommand is supposed to demonstrate this in the context of presenting the plan to the community.

Like the others, I'm not wowed by Betacommand's compliance with this latter portion, though I somewhat understand why it is so brief. I believe the intent of this ARCA is to submit the plan outlining intended editing activity so it can be fairly evaluated separately from concerns as to how repentant Betacommand is. Dealing with it all at once would likely result in almost no focus on the intended editing activity. As this discussion has progressed, it's clear that had Betacommand focused more on the conduct that resulted in his ban, we would not be talking at all about the plan.

From my perspective, I think this is a decent enough plan, though I would agree with others who say semi-automated editing as with AWB should be off the table along with fully automated editing. And of course, Betacommand should comply with the portion of the Betacommand 3 remedy requiring him to "demonstrat[e] his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban". —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
I'm generally against usernames which can't be typed on a standard English-language keyboard on English Wikipedia. In the case of a user who has caused a significant amount of trouble in the past (in fact, this user has his own section of WP:AN as a centralized location for discussions about him), I believe that changing his username should be an absolute requirement. If the user is willing to do this, I would support allowing the user to re-enter the Wikipedia community gradually - and the proposed restrictions (including specific semi-automated tools, such as AWB) look like a good start.

Statement by Paul August
Simply put no.

I urge anyone who is inclined to give Betacommand another (4th, 5th?) chance please read:


 * Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
 * Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3

As the arb who wrote the first of these decisions, and who has been an interested observer of the subsequent two, based on my intimate knowledge of Betacopmmand’s past actions, I can say with confidence that granting this request would be an extremely bad idea.

I see no evidence (certainly not in this request) that Betacommand understands what the problems are, nor do I believe, that Betacommand has the ability to understand them. Betacommand’s one-size-fits-all approach, and predilection for bot-aided-mass-edits is inherently problematic. Betacommand’s inability to communicate, would only compound the inevitable problems such edits entail.

Paul August &#9742; 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To those who seem to want to continue to give Betacommand still more chances in the future, please consider that this appeal has resulted in a considerable expenditure of dozens of editor's time. We should do something to avoid future such occurrences. At some point Betacommand's ban should be permanant, fool us once shame on you, fool us five or six or ... shame on us. Paul August &#9742; 15:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by jtrainor
No.

This is clearly just another attempt by Beta to return to abusive bot usage.

And on another note, someone needs to force rename his account to something that isn't completely impossible to type on mobile. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Oddly, I think the pitchforks and torches above are actually the best reason to unblock - simply put, Beta would be watched like a hawk by dozens of editors keen to see him banned again. I see that as a no-lose situation, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by PGWG
I would support this unblock request - it's been 3+ years since the last socking, significantly longer since the original block, and we all change. If this is just a ploy or attempt to game the system, that'll be quickly identified and I see no shortage of people willing, if not eager, to pull the trigger. PGWG (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
Please do not add more bot drama to the encyclopedia. Most editors simply do not care about bots or bot policy. If I am aware of a bot issue it is a sign that something has gone very badly wrong because I think along with Wikidata, it is the most boring area on Wikipedia and do my absolute best to stay away from it. We have the editor who is known for running the most controversial bot in Wikipedia's history. Do we really think that they are not going to try to get involved with bot policy and do we really think that their involvement there will be a net-positive to the encyclopedia, even if they don't run a bot themselves? Please save us the drama of more automation conflict. I strongly oppose this unban. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by 😂
We absolutely should unban Δ. It was a net loss to the community to ban him from the get go, and he's been blocked for far more than a sufficient time (per Legacypac). FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602]  <em style="font-size:10px;">17:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari
Quite a few of the comments in opposition to the unbanning of Δ are bordering on or, if not, outright personal attacks. We get it: Δ is banned and quite a few people don't like him but neither of those are a free pass to insult him and malign his character. I don't care if he allegedly caused "years of disruption" - Δ is still a human being and last I checked, no personal attacks is still a policy. Commenting on his actions is absolutely valid criticism but to continually refer to him as "toxic" and to call him other names isn't acceptable.

And please, please, *please* call him Δ. To continually refer to someone by a name they have long since abandoned is offensive and disrespectful; again, a person being unpopular is not a free pass to be disrespectful to them. It doesn't matter if his name can't easily be typed - there's such a thing as cut and paste or you can use "Delta". Acalamari 12:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
No, please don't unblock Beta. The RFC clearly indicates community opinion. -- Begoon 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil
I actually believe that Δ means to be constructive if allowed to return, but from what I see there is still a lack of understanding there about how they got into trouble in the first place. The first step to avoid repeating your mistakes is to understand them. I'm not seeing a deep enough understanding there on the part of Δ to stop themselves from getting into difficulty again. I do not recommend an unblock at this time.

If allowed back under some form of restricted access, I think it is imperative that we put forward a condition that any blocks of Δ (or whatever account they end up using) should only be appealable to Arbcom, rather than to the drama boards. The whole situation with them in the past was dragged out for far longer than it needed to be due to a small group of admins who were happy to cover for them and drag the drama out for as long as possible. Such a condition would prevent a re-run of those unfortunate events, while still giving Δ some protection against heavy handed blocks for minor infractions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Beetstra
Definitely unban. It has been long enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 29 November 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.

Betacommand 3: Clerk notes

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


 * In accordance with the majority decision of the Committee, the clerks have been directed to close this request as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Betacommand 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * For this decision there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 (DeltaQuad and Kelapstick) who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.


 * - I think we see it the same way as Alanscottwalker. The terms of the Arbcom decision require community input before any action to modify the ban. The ultimate decision on any modification remains up to the Committee. That said, I can't imagine we would simply ignore an obvious community consensus - and if we did, there'd need to be some solid public explanation. Unrelated point - I do kind of agree with Ivanvector's point about avoiding different regimes for different bans, which is something to avoid in future case outcomes. However in this instance we've been reasonably transparent - as I noted at the RfC, we received a perfunctory appeal in 2015, which didn't contain an editing plan. We didn't receive any appeal in 2016, and here we are in public with the 2017 one. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euryalus about the structure of the remedy, and with Ivanvector that it hasn't really proved itself very practical. But there isn't really a "shroud of arbcom" here, nor do I think there's been bad faith among people who believed we were stalling or said as much on-wiki; just a case of miscommunication and the telephone game. Now that we're here, I would like to encourage comments to focus on things Δ is actually personally responsible for, not on bad decisions made by others in the course of interacting with him. Also, for the record, we've looked and found no current socking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer seems very clear to me. <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 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is sizeable consensus that there is not a desire to unblock Δ. This has been an extensive an unblock appeal ARCA and the whole point was to elicit feedback from the community. Any outcome other than decline at this point would be undermine the process. While this process does consume quite a bit of time and effort on the part of the community, it was effective in delivering a definitive answer. I think a similar process or following the unban policy would both be suitable solutions should there be another future appeal. <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 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that any future appeal will almost certainly need to address this ARCA and the comments from the community. <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 18:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am reviewing the noticeboard thread and statements above. If there is anything else to be said, commenters should focus on whether or not Δ is likely to contribute productively if unbanned and what restrictions, if any, would maximize the odds. There has been a bit too much focus on procedure leading up to this request&mdash;the requirement that Δ submit a plan in connection with any appeal was really just a fleshing out of what the committee and the community would expect from any banned or indefblocked user seeking to return: an explanation of how or she would edit, and what he or should would do differently so as to avoid the problems of the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see a good reason to unblock. The "plan" is all too short and perfunctory; sure, one can have stuff on one's plate, but if that's the case and it prevents a solid plan as required years ago, then one is maybe not ready. This is not a community unban process, of course, but ArbCom would be a fool not to take the community seriously. In other words, I do not see enough "what he or she would do differently". Drmies (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me consensus opposes an unban - barring any sudden turnaround in the next couple of days I think we should wrap this up as declined.. make a good point about whether future ban appeals should be via the unban policy rather than appeal to Arbcom; I'd be interested in other views on this as a matter of transparency. I think this discussion has been a useful process, and at the very least, it should be a precedent for future committees to consult with the community as a first step in a Δ unban request. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd suggest the standard twelve months. I can imagine (and sympathise with) Δ's frustration - for most editors this would have been a perfectly reasonable unblock request; but in this instance the community still doesn't have the requisite level of trust. Unsurprising, given the second, third, fourth, fifth chances already granted and abused; but frustrating nonetheless. The only advice I can give to Δ is to give it more time; and/or to show some bona fides through assiduous and error-free work on a related project. I'd also reiterate the point made above, but for some reason not universally acknowledged, that the period since the last breach of trust is 2014 (Werieth), not 2011 (Δ). If the Werieth saga had not occurred, we might have seen a different result in this ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging outstanding arb votes - this has been open for more than 2 weeks (and the RfC for a while before that). Discussion seems to have ended, so when you have a moment let's wrap it up with more closing yeas or nays. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The consensus clearly appears to be that we should not unblock, and I see no reason not to accept that view.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that unbanning would be swiftly followed by a block if problematic editing recurred. However, there is a consensus not to unblock, which I will abide by - hence decline Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should support the consensus and not unblock. There would be no point in asking the community's opinion and then ignoring it. Doug Weller  talk 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, returning editors have to be able to work with the community as it exists, and there's a lot of people here who obviously do not want to work with Δ under the terms he proposed. Time to wrap this up as a decline, and with the advice that a future appeal should contain much more detail about past problems and how to avoid them. (IMO omitting any mention of the Werieth incident in the original appeal was a misjudgment.) I'd suggest working on another project and demonstrating improved collaborative ability, but I admit that successful work on wikidata may not convince some of the opposers :) Still, it seems like a good fit for Δ's style. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am generally more willing to unblock where there is a good chance that the editor will be able to edit constructively including with conditions, partially because reblocks are cheap. As OR says an unblocked editor needs to be able to work with the community and it is clear from community comments in this request that the community doesn't feel able to work with Δ under the current terms proposed. For that reason, I decline this request echoing the advice OR gave for a future appeal above (briefly, I agree that 12 months is a reasonable period before another appeal). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request: Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified (December 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Huldra at 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=781084085#Motion:_ARBPIA_.22consensus.22_provision_modified

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 Huldra
How is the above statement: "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" to be interpreted?

I have discussed it with User:Opabinia regalis and User:Callanecc at some length here.

There are presently 2 different interpretations, lets call them Version 1 and Version 2:
 * In Version 1: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after their own edit
 * In Version 2: its original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other users edit

I can live with either version (both are an improvement on what we had), I just need to know which one is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) editor Cullen328
I support 's interpretation that "the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert." These restrictions are designed to encourage broader talk page discussion leading to consensus, and slowing down article space reversions serves that goal. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish, on ARBPIA
Only version 2 is logically feasible. Example of why: I make an edit at 00:01. No one notices it until 23:59, and they revert it. Two minutes later, at 00:02, more than 24 hours has passed under version 1, so I'd be free to re-revert. Not cool, and not the intent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:35, 2 December 2017 (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.

Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified: Clerk notes

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



Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My interpretation is version 2 - the original author may not restore it within 24 hours after the other user's revert. The purpose of this part of the motion was to replace the requirement for consensus to be achieved by making editors wait before restoring their own edit after it had been reverted. This was so it would be more likely that the two users would discuss it and (probably more likely/hopeful) that other editors will be able to comment (or revert if the edit is inappropriate). I'm open to amending the restriction to "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert ." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 (January 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88#Hijiri88:_Topic_ban_(I)
 * (Suspended for six months, at which point it will lapse)

Statement by Hijiri88
Sorry to bring this up in the "lame duck" session (I don't mind waiting until the new year before anyone notices this), but I would like to appeal my "Nichiren Buddhism" ban, similarly to how I appealed my "Japanese culture" ban in September.

I have no desire to specifically go back and edit the articles that were at the center of my dispute with Catflap08, most of which centered around 20th-century nationalistic Nichirenism and the poet Miyazawa Kenji, with Nichiren Buddhism actually being somewhat peripheral to most of my edits to the latter -- hence, presumably, why "and its adherents" was included in the wording of the ban. The reason I am appealing is that I don't want to look over my shoulder every time I edit an article on someone not specifically known for being an adherent of Nichiren Buddhism to see if they may have been associated with it. Some examples:
 * Our article on Oda Nobunaga doesn't appear to mention Nichiren Buddhism, and I had no idea he might be until just now, but the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article claims "宗門は法華宗を公称していた" ("He was formally considered an adherent of the Lotus Sect").
 * There is a lot of tabloid speculation on supposed affiliations of various celebrities and politicians with Soka Gakkai and other such religious groups (I'm not going to name them per WP:BLP, but one is my favourite actress, and neither English nor Japanese Wikipedia mention her religious affiliations, even though someone could probably dig sources on them up).
 * When I wrote the Unshō article, I spent about 30 minutes going down a rabbit hole to ensure that the Chōkyū-ji Temple he was associated with was not in the same sect (Nichiren) as a more famous modern Chōkyū-ji Temple. If it had turned out it was, I would have had to abandon the draft I was working on, wasting even more time, and time was something I did not want to waste last month (see here).

I'd be happy to see the ban suspended for six months, during which time it could be reinstated by any uninvolved admin, rather than an immediate full repeal, similar to the previous appeal.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The closest I can think of was when I reported another user for plagiarism in their articles on Indian and Indonesian topics, with the (openly disclosed) conflict of interest that if the plagiarized articles were disqualified from Wikipedia Asian Month my own articles on mostly Japanese topics would win the top prize in that editathon. I also contributed to these three discussions about the use of IPA in Japanese articles, and an earlier, loosely related, discussion of IPA and kanji in the lead of our Kazuo Ishiguro article -- the latter's not really a part of "Japanese culture", but it's "related" enough that I probably would have stayed away from it before appealing my previous TBAN anyway, so including it here for full disclosure. And I removed some maintenance tags that had been erroneously placed on articles I had written. Otherwise I've mostly been building my own articles, without much interaction at all with other editors, let alone "incidents" -- the nearest I can think of to a full-on dispute over a Japanese article I've been involved in was this, and that's reaching to even call it a dispute. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 05:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC))
 * In case it's not clear, the above is really grasping at straws in an attempt to as open as humanly possible. I could have answered "No" to your question and even if you went through my contribs and found all of the above you probably would not disagree. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanked own responses to removed statement. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, Rob. I guess the demand that involved parties be notified was just a misapprehension. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 08:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC))
 * As outlined in the ANI thread you closed, in January of this year you blocked an editor based on an ANI discussion that had spun out of a still-open Arbitration request and a separate AE request. This was what led me to believe that ANI was the right forum for requesting such enforcement. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind fixing the double-negative misprint? These issues are muddy enough without your fellows thinking you believe this ban continues to serve an important purpose. ;-) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (just because you were the last to comment) Does there need to be a majority vote on a specific proposal by a member of ArbCom to suspend the ban (like last time), or does it work like imposing or repealing community bans where any random number of Arbitrators is enough if they all agree? I ask because one incoming and one outgoing Arbitrator have both expressed support, and including both would mean the number of Arbitrators is larger than fourteen (excluding Alex who recused himself). As I said above, I'm cool with waiting: I'm just curious. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (technically, this is more a response to your edit summary than your actual comment, which did not use the phrase "serial sock") FWIW, User:Drmies apparently misread the site-ban discussion (I'm assuming the "like a bandit" and "resentment" parts were meant to be tongue-in-cheek). The ban was not proposed by a serial sock: it was proposed by User:Softlavender, at which point Twitbookspacetube had not commented in the discussion, then the latter showed up two hours later and weirdly claimed to be proposing a new ban that had already been proposed. This was actually something they apparently did quite often, and (per Sandstein and LT235's comments right here) I find it kinda disturbing that their being a sock could be taken to invalidate sanctions they claimed to be the one proposing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 17:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
No opinion on the matter at hand, but this is to inform the Committee that I have procedurally closed an ANI request in which it was alleged that John Carter violated a topic ban by commenting in this thread. I assume that if any action with respect to this is needed, it is up to the Committee to take such action, considering that the conduct at issue occurred in this arbitration forum. If I erred in that assumption, an indication that this alleged topic ban violation can be examined in other fora such as WP:AE would be welcome.  Sandstein  00:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
I'd support the committee granting this request. I've been the admin he has been working with on the copyright issue, and I've found him nothing but reasonable there. If this is how he interacts with editors with whom he disagrees or comes into conflict with, I think Wikipedia would be well served to suspend this TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants
I'm here to support Hijiri (so I won't be watching this page, ping me if you need my attention). I've never seen him be anything but reasonable when it comes to content discussions, even when we disagree. I don't believe that any sort of topical editing restriction on Hijiri could accomplish anything beneficial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  01:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih
Since I have supported the previous amendment request and have worked with  on several occasions, I am recusing myself and submitting this statement instead. I would also support granting this request, as I personally believe this ban no longer serves any purpose, based on the rationale I have stated back in September. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Catflap08 and Hijiri88)

 * incomming arbitrators may cast votes, but they will not be counted if the motion closes before 1 January (which seems unlikely in this case). See also my post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 30 December 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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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


 * I've removed a statement in accordance with the relevant community sanctions and the clerks' enforcement authority on arbitration pages. Just FYI, administrators are generally allowed to take administrative action with regards to edits to arbitration pages, though caution should be exercised in enforcing restrictions when WP:BANEX is arguable, in accordance with our procedures ("This procedure does not prohibit normal administrative actions to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as a block for personal attacks or sockpuppetry."). Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'll do my own due diligence on this as well, but have you been involved in any incidents or conflicts related to "Japanese culture" since the lifting of that topic ban? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This link, provided above by Hijiri as an example of a "conflict" (kind of) they were involved in related to "Japanese culture" after that topic ban was lifted, is a strong case for further rolling back of sanctions. That's just about the gold standard for talk page discussion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to notify parties unrelated to the restriction being appealed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Catflap got royally shafted by a small group within 24 hours after a banning proposal (for a dumb-ass violation made out of frustration) by a serial sock, now also indefinitely banned, we might as well vacate all restrictions that apply to the lone survivor, Hijiri, who, I might add, made out like a bandit in the big ArbCom case. /resentment Drmies (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Since it's the holidays I'm OK with letting this sit for a couple of days to make sure interested parties have time to comment, but this seems relatively low-risk. (I can't remember offhand if we got an appeal from Catflap, but I don't think one appeal needs to have an impact on the other.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also willing to continue rolling-back these sanctions. It doesn't appear that Hijiri88 has received any sanctions in the area recently, in fact it appears that their editing has been very good. I'd prefer to use the same method as last time (and what has become standard practice) - the ban is suspended for 6 months and can be reinstated by an uninvolved admin if required, otherwise it expires after 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It needs a motion, which I've proposed below. I imagine this won't be resolved until the new year when incoming arbitrators will be able to vote on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but doing it with the method suggested by Callanecc. Doug Weller  talk 10:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Motion
Enacted -Kostas20142 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Euryalus (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I was thinking of just leaving this till Jan 1, but sure, no problems starting now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this per Dmies above. And even though there's the community ban (which should be reversed, hopefully this might encourage an appeal) I think we should be offering User:Catflap08 the same deal.  Doug Weller  talk 14:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) Alex Shih (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * I'm proposing this now so that we don't have it languishing. While they certainly can if they wish, there's probably not much accomplished by outgoing arbs voting given those votes will need to be struck out on 01 Jan. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are incoming arbs able to cast provisional votes? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's probably no problem with voting now. But, for the purposes of it being abundantly clear who is voting and what the majority is, it might be worth waiting. There isn't really a difference (for the purposes of the motion passing) between voting today or tomorrow.