Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 10

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

 * Original discussion

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

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

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

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

Moved from other sections

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


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

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

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

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

Statement by NE Ent

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


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

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

Statement by Liz
I'm surprised by this proposal after looking at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review where there were three rounds of consultation before Discretionary Sanctions wording was altered. Is it appropriate to suggest a rewrite here? Liz Read! Talk! 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015
The header for 's statement just says "Volunteer Marek"; for consistency with others, it should be adjusted to read "Statement by Volunteer Marek".

70.24.4.51 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- haminoon  ( talk ) 08:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Original discussion

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

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

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

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

I propose that these remedies be struck

1
Case: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Remedy to be struck: Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles

Passed: 27 October 2011

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

2
Case: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

Passed: 8 March 2013

Last admin action: 24 July 2009

3
Case: Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Passed: 1 February 2008

Last admin action: 1 April 2008

4
Case: Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Passed: 2 January 2007

Last admin action: 3 March 2007

5
Case: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Passed: 9 November 2006

Last admin action: Never

6
Case: Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

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

Passed: 5 February 2008

Last admin action: 3 December 2010

7
Case: Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming

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

Passed: c. 6 February 2006

Last admin action: 12 June 2006

8
Case: Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Remedy: Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Passed: 13 March 2008

Last admin action: 29 May 2008

9
Case: Requests for arbitration/Free Republic


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

Passed: 29 March 2007

Last admin action: 29 February 2008

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

Remedy: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Passed: 12 October 2009

Last admin action: 12 March 2011

11
Case: Requests for arbitration/Election

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

Passed: 1 July 2006

Last admin action: None

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

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


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

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

Comment by T. Canens
The Troubles and ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions logs were moved to the centralized WP:DSLOG. T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion: Dreadstar desysopped (March 2015)

 * Original discussion

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
 * 1) to an editor he had just sanctioned,
 * 2) on an article and then, and
 * 3) out of process,



Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate but necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Every last one of these would be worth a desysop, really. In conjunction, no other choice is possible. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This vote is based on actions 1 and 3, because, as indicated above, I'm recused with respect to action 2. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per 2 and 3. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar has unilaterally reversed an arbitration action before and has already been given the benefit of the doubt.  Roger Davies  talk 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as with Thryduulf, based on #1 and #3 DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * with regret that it became necessary. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Recuse

Page length
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes is so extraordinarily long. Since it's separate discussions from the original case and from multiple requests for clarification/amendment/etc., would it be reasonable to split off the discussions into subpages that would be linked from the main talk page? Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

E cig arbitration
Don't listen to. The arbs and especially Bishonen have it right. SPACKlick has been filibustering a discussion at Talk:Islamic calendar for three months. We now have a consensus that the description "Muhammad forbidding intercalation" is wrong but SPACKlick has reverted "no consensus". With RfC/U now defunct and DRN unlikely to lead anywhere, how about unprotecting the Arbitration/requests page? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I Fail to see how this is anything other than WP:Hounding now 87.81. I would ask if an admin could remove this post as irrelevant. SPACKlick (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the local talk was

87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not the venue for this discussion, it should be on the talk page. 2) Your initial post had nothing to do with the content dispute at Islamic Calendar. 3) The full content of my post was
 * "The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section."

- Hi DrNick !


 * Please cease your ridiculous crusade and have a civil discussion of sources & content on the talk page.SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please cease your ridiculous crusade and have a civil discussion of sources & content on the talk page.SPACKlick (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive timeout for WP:AE
Recently some AE requests were being archived without action being taken. Looking for the cause, I noticed that the timeout for the archive bot had been reduced from 4 days to 48 hours some time in January. I restored it to 4 days. If anyone still thinks 48 hours is better, can they comment? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
In this WP:AE request, JzG has posted in the uninvolved admin section even though JzG has expressed a strong opinion on the subject, and has directly participated in the content dispute. It seems pretty obvious that JzG is not uninvolved, yet they continue to post in the uninvolved admin section. Am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since your have argued that climate change is not the issue here, why are JzG's comments on climate change relevant? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this is the talk page for Arbitration Requests, I'd vote for the redirect from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to be deleted and a talk page maintained there to talk about issues that arise about cases AE. These very valid comments don't have anything to do with case requests for ARBCOM. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, the move occurred as a result of Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_2, but I think the talk page being redirected here was not specifically mentioned there. I can't find it, anyway. Does anyone object to AE having it's own talk page, instead of being redirected here? Is there a rationale of which I am unaware? Killer Chihuahua 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom talk pages are very confusing, some are redirected, others exist (like the Noticeboard talk page) that few people know exist. It's confusing to find out where discussions are occurring and since AE is technically separate from ARBCOM, it makes sense to not to direct people with questions about AE to an ArbCom/Request talk page. Liz  Read! Talk! 03:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the history, but AE not having it's own talk page surprises me somewhat and I'd certainly support unredirecting it. Roger Davies and Newyorkbrad are the current and former arbitrators most likely to know why the status quo is as it is, so let's wait until they have had a chance to offer input here before changing anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that WP:AE should have its own talk page. There are only two non-archived discussions on this talk page (one started by EdJohnston and one started by me) and both are about WP:AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge, since AE is really a realm for admins, and not arbitrators, do you think posting a proposal on WP:AN would be sufficient to gauge support? Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging
I keep getting pinged to the Project page for Lightbreather's request, but I don't see for what or why. Am I missing something? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Logging enforcement of BASC decisions
Is there a place admins are supposed to log enforcement of BASC unblock/unban conditions? Referring specifically to my AE block of Darkness Shines for breaching BASC unblock conditions if that helps. Pinging (who "imposed" the conditions) and current BASC members, , ,. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anywhere off the top of my head, but somewhere to record this would be useful I can see. For now, place a note in the section of his talk page where the unblock is mentioned and we'll get back to you if there is anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems like the kind of think we could "hack" the DS log to include, perhaps by re-purposing it to be a total list of arbitration enforcement actions... Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's been brought up before (can't remember) who - it was that blocks issued per an ArbCom imposed TBAN from a case get logged on the case page but for (possibly) the same TBAN (imposed under DS) it goes in a different place. So I think a section for DS, for case imposed and BASC imposed restrictions could work quite well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Language branches
Does every domain language of wikipedia has this kind of arbitration procedure/committee or it is optional for them ? For those which do not have, how resolution of conflicts is solved ? PaulRamone2 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Conflict resolution procedures are set up independently in each project and may differ considerably. Many of the larger ones have something similar to Arbcom though. If you go to the WP:ARBCOM page, the list of foreign-language interwiki lings (at the left of the screen, under "languages") will give you a rough idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeals
Is this (ARCA) the place to seek overturning of Arb restrictions? GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sort of. It's the place to argue for changes to the wording of remedies, but not to (for example) lodge appeals against bans. What are you looking to overturn? -- Euryalus (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on getting a 3 yr old Arb restriction lifted from me. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be a good place. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (May 2015)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected
 * Complementary and Alternative Medicine

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification

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


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

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

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


 * Reply to Kww

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


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


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

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

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


 * Reply to Thryduulf

Thank you for explaining your statement.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Cla68
Arbitrators, it's fairly obvious that what happened here is that after A1's case was declined, KWW went by his page to taunt him about it and try to provoke him into a escalated response to try to use it to get him banned. Notice that Beeblebrox has fallen right into helping out with that plan. WP's admin drones' behavior is so predictable. That's why KWW was doing this. Your responses are further enabling this type of behavior and this is one of the reasons why so many good editors have departed WP, because they're fed up with seeing or experiencing this kind of shite. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Clerk notes

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



Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Since there was never a Complimentary and Alternative Medicine case (it was declined), there is no Arbitration decision to clarify or amend. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe we are being asked to clarify here the reasons why we decided to decline a case, which when done in good faith (as here), seems to be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I don't have to review this now and don't recall it in sufficient detail to express an opinion on the actual request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That quote of mine is not a finding of fact that anyone has been uncivil, it is a statement of my personal opinion about the general philosophy that should be applied in the topic area (and indeed elsewhere). I made it in response to allegations of incivility, but I offered (and still offer) no opinion (as an arbitrator or as an individual) whether those allegations are correct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Yunshui.  Roger Davies  talk 10:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Yunshui and RG. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. This venue is for clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, not to discuss declined cases. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And me. AGK  [•] 07:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A binary decision such as to decline or accept a case can be reached under different reasoning by every arbitrator, so trying to come up with a collective "why didn't we take this case" would be impossible. Decline. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. A case decline is not a decision that can be clarified or amended, and I think those who provided reasons for declining were clear in what they said. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

arbcom-banned editor's comments on a case?
Pardon my ignorance (I don't usually read this stuff), but since was recently banned by Arbcom, should anything happen to the statements they've made at Arbitration/Requests/Case? Thanks, ansh 666 23:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking individually, the post was made before he was banned and isn't particularly disruptive, so I'm opted to just leave it. It's like RfA, we don't remove statements of previously banned people there, because they may contain some relevance or may show how a certain part of the community feels. -- DQ mobile  (ʞlɐʇ)  15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's what I figured, thanks. ansh 666 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pao
A quick note -- checking in between appointments. There's a good deal of Gamergate chatter today around Ellen Pao, formerly partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, calling on supporters to target her Wikipedia page. Pao has, it seems, crossed Gamergate on Reddit. You might want to consider whether those Gamergate sanctions should extend to her, her former firm, and her suit against them; since that suit is a gender-releated controversy, it's not a great stretch, and I notice that Handpolk's already taken an interest in the firm's page. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this an enforcement request against the article Ellen Pao? We can't discipline articles. 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering the "broadly construed" language, I would think that her former firm would already be within the penumbra of the GG sanctions. BMK (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP editor above left this charming message at User Talk:Masem:
 *  Once again, Bernstein can't read a diff or follow a simple contribution history, he attacks the IP and attacks Masem, who's contributed more to the encyclopedia than he could ever hope you. How long will the project tolerate this babbling fool? 104.156.240.150 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)'
 * and then redacts "babbling fool" for reasons about which I won’t speculate. I've added DS warning templates to both pages; let me know if that's not correct! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If these two pages, the law firm and the biography, are covered by GG DS, the talk page notice shouldn't just say that DS are applicable here but that they are Gamergate-related. Mark, because you keep an eye on these things, you are aware of the GG connection but it wasn't obvious to me and if future edits constitute a topic ban violation for Handpolk, this should be made absolutely clear. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I believe that we are better served, and build a better Encyclopedia, if we do not go looking for issues outside Wikipedia. If editors are editing articles in breach of our content policies, that should, of course, be addressed; but there is no need, and no value, in seeking out trouble. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, outside conversation in Reddit can be manipulated through a single user with multiple accounts. These claims are very broad, yet Ellen Pao as a target is questionable, although disapproval of Ellen Pao has become a common topic in all of Reddit; As I understand it there have been entire threads deleted for discussing Pao. I don't see any relation between Reddit & their disgruntled Users belonging solely to the #gamergate hashtag. The entire issue is being handled by that site anyway. --j0eg0d (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

American Politics DS template
In order to issue a DS template in the area of American Politics, what template code do I use? (It isn't yet listed in the general instructions for the template.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert, the code is ap . You can find it at Template:Ds/alert. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I found that after I posted the question, possibly because it was added after I posted the question.  Unfortunately, it does appear that it will be necessary to use that template from time to time, which is of course why the ArbCom authorized the sanctions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for just seeing your request for information today. We are down three clerks right now due to trips and vacations and I don't check this talk page regularly. And, as we move into 2016, I think this is a DS alert that will definitely be used. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of AE
A reminder.

In the Eric Corbett closure on WP:AE, an administrator writes that another administrator had blocked Eric Corbett despite there being no apparent consensus on the page. "The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear," the administrator writes.

You don't need to be a great historian of Wikipedia to recognise that the purpose of WP:AE has always been to advertise arbitration rulings that may need to be enforced. That's the whole, complete and sole purpose. Administrators are explicitly authorised to take action to enforce rulings of the arbitration committee; the notion that there needs to be discussion and consensus before an administrator takes any action is quite foreign to the way arbitration rulings are set out authorising administrators to act.

I have no particular opinion on the case in question, but the existence of the WP:AE page was never intended to preempt action by administrators to enforce arbitration decisions and must never be used in that fashion. All administrator actions are subject to reversal on review or appeal.

There is a dwindling active administration corps and with each cohort they become more timid and unwilling to deal with active abuse even when authorised to do so by the arbitration committee. It's imperative that admins recognise that it's their responsibility individually as well as collectively to enforce arbitration rulings. --TS 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (comments as an admin not as an arbitrator) That is true, but where there is an ongoing discussion at AE admins should not act to bypass that discussion without there being a good reason to do so, and they must be prepared to explain their choice to bypass the discussion. What admins should and should not do if a discussion has been closed with a consensus is the crux of this case request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that you have some admins saying the closure "is" an admin action, and others saying it "is not." If nothing else, we should settle that issue. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   22:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I am no expert on how Arb policy is made but I do know that there is a general principle that the committee is not to create new policy - so that may be an issue. With respect to the non-consensual nature of Arb enforcement, that would seem to be based in WP:CONEXCEPT -- the purpose being an institutional bulwark against mobocracy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for pointing out what a lot of people seem to not realize. In response to GregJackP's excellent point, I think a closure should reflect what happened, not what should happen. It is not for any admin to decide that an arbcom ruling should not be enforced. Admins are explicitly authorized to enforce these rulings in the absence of any formal procedings. As always any admin action is open to review. <b style="color:Sienna">Chillum</b> 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DS does allow action when there is a lack of consensus. The question is what happens when there is a claim of consensus not to sanction, and then a DS sanction is placed. Same question when a single admin actively declines to sanction, is forum shopping until you find an admin that will sanction to be encouraged when it comes to DS? (not alleging that happened here, but we could be inviting it) When a sanction is requested there should be 3 possible outcomes: sanction, not taking action, and rejecting the request. Just doing nothing should never bind other admins, but actively rejecting the request should generally, nearly as much so as enacting a sanction. Consider the other possibility, someone who is the target of an enforcement request can never be sure they are out from under the threat, no matter how clearly the request has been rejected at AE, because an admin who disagrees is free to enact a sanction. Monty  845  22:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly the point. We need guidance on this, and if it is not for ArbCom to create policy, perhaps an RfC on the issue. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are something Arbcom created, and are a delegation of the Committee's power, as such, at least as the question applies to DS, it is entirely within the Committee's remit to decide. Monty  845  23:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what my thought was in bringing it here. But I thought it was wheel-warring too, I guess based on a comparison with 3RR to 1RR, and if AE could not be changed except under certain conditions, it would be wheel-warring to violate those conditions. So I'm not really sure, so I'm good with whatever is decided, as long as it clears up the confusion. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

List of editors affected by Motion 2 of Arbitration enforcement case Comment

 * 1) 50.0.136.194
 * 2) 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7
 * 3) Adjwilley
 * 4) Alakzi
 * 5) Alanscottwalker
 * 6) Amortias
 * 7) Andrew Davidson
 * 8) Andy Dingley
 * 9) Arkon
 * 10) Arthur Rubin
 * B
 * 1) Bbb23
 * 2) Beyond My Ken
 * 3) Biblioworm
 * 4) Bishonen
 * 5) Black Kite
 * 6) Bosstopher
 * 7) Capeo
 * 8) Carrite
 * 9) Cassianto
 * 10) Chillum
 * 11) ChristophThomas
 * 12) Collect
 * 13) Darwinian Ape
 * 14) Davewild
 * 15) Davey2010
 * 16) DD2K
 * 17) Dennis Brown
 * 18) DHeyward
 * 19) Diannaa
 * 20) Dr. Blofeld
 * 21) DrKiernan
 * 22) Drmies
 * 23) Epipelagic
 * 24) ErikHaugen
 * 25) Euryalus
 * 26) EvergreenFir
 * 27) Everyking
 * 28) Floquenbeam
 * 29) Fluffernutter
 * 30) Fylbecatulous
 * 31) Gaijin42
 * 32) Gamaliel
 * 33) Georgewilliamherbert
 * 34) Gerda Arendt
 * 35) GoodDay
 * 36) GorillaWarfare
 * 37) GregJackP
 * 38) Guy Macon
 * 39) Hal peridol
 * 40) Hell in a Bucket
 * 41) Hobit
 * 42) Hut 8.5
 * 43) Ihardlythinkso
 * 44) Ironholds
 * 45) Jayron32
 * 46) Jehochman
 * 47) Johnbod
 * 48) Jytdog
 * JzG
 * 1) Karanacs
 * 2) Kevin Gorman
 * 3) Kingsindian
 * 4) Knowledgekid87
 * 5) Konveyor Belt
 * 6) KoshVorlon
 * KTC
 * 1) Kudpung
 * 2) Lightbreather
 * Liz
 * 1) Lugnuts
 * 2) MarnetteD
 * 3) MLauba
 * 4) Mojo Hand
 * 5) MONGO
 * 6) Montanabw
 * 7) Monty845
 * 8) Mrjulesd
 * 9) Ncmvocalist
 * 10) Nick
 * 11) Nick-D
 * 12) Noren
 * 13) Nortonius
 * 14) NuclearWarfare
 * 15) Only in death
 * 16) Opabinia regalis
 * 17) Pedro
 * 18) Reaper Eternal
 * 19) Resolute
 * 20) RGloucester
 * 21) Ritchie333
 * 22) Rschen7754
 * 23) S Marshall
 * 24) Sagaciousphil
 * 25) Salvidrim!
 * 26) Salvio giuliano
 * 27) Sandstein
 * 28) Sceptre
 * 29) ScrapIronIV
 * 30) Sitush
 * 31) Sjakkalle
 * 32) Softlavender
 * 33) Spartaz
 * 34) Sphilbrick
 * 35) TenOfAllTrades
 * 36) The Devil's Advocate
 * 37) The ed17
 * 38) Tony Sidaway
 * 39) Tryptofish
 * 40) TyTyMang

Request to unhat/fix up the MarkBernstein AE
Bishonen had hatted the AE I had placed against Mark on the basis of using a non-remedy as the actionable item, and I admit, that was my bad. I asked Bishonen on his talk page about unhatting it so that I can fix the actionable item (noting that Mark has been topic-banned though lifted from GG before), but Bishonen did not see the immediate relevance of this and suggested I open discussion here, so I am following up on that. (see )

After reviewing a bit more, I believe the sanction I should be filing the AE under is under the discretionary section of the GG findings, which codified the existing community sanctions, which include "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor that edits pages related to the Gamergate controversy, if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.", of which specifically I am concerned on Mark for "expected standards of behavior". As such, I am requesting if the AE can be unhatted so that I can fix, in the case listing, the sanction to be enforced. --M ASEM (t) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to file this at WP:ARCA? Normally, closures are appealed at the admins' noticeboard. An appeal on AN will get a lot more eyes on it than here, this isn't a particularly heavily watched talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bishonen suggested here after I commented on their page, but also did suggest AN. (I realize this was my mistake in the filing and not Bishonen, so I felt considering it an admin issue to be overkill). If that is the recommended place, I will do that instead. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As necessary, this request should be considered closed. I took to AN as suggested, it was discussed and closed there at my request. --M ASEM (t) 23:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Arbitration Enforcement header
On July 1, 2015, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement%2FHeader&type=revision&diff=669457604&oldid=652037115 the header on the Arbitration Enforcement page was changed] to include the text of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=606947133#Motion:_Appeals_and_modifications motion passed in 2014] to update the procedure for discretionary sanctions (note the text explicitly states the provisions do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the Arbitration Committee). However, the earlier text was based on a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=349939789#2._ArbCom_Enforcement_Motion motion passed in 2010] that was not solely limited to discretionary sanctions. Accordingly, I do not believe the 2014 motion completely supersedes the 2010 motion. Can the procedure in the header be clarified accordingly? isaacl (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2014 updated procedure for appeals and modifications completely supersedes the previous version, and (unlike the prior one) applies to both arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions. This was done deliberately to get the procedures into sync and avoid confusion.  Roger Davies  talk 05:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify, then, the following paragraph in the updated Appeals and modification section:
 * 3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
 * Which provisions are being referred to? Only the immediately preceding notes 1 and 2? isaacl (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New evidence for pseudoscience
Would a clerk please review the history at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. Should that page be edited now (WP:ARBPS closed in December 2006)? I will notify the user, but clarification here would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits have been reverted and it appears that you've discussed the situation with the editor so I don't think the action will be repeated. Thank you for taking that action. And you are correct, if an editor wants to revisit a closed arbitration case, they should post a request at WP:ARCA. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 11:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a Case - Template is Confusing - How do I enter CASENAME
The template for filing an arbitration request is confusing. In particular, at the very top, it says to provide a neutral name for the case. But below there, it says not to enter anything in the case header. Do I enter the case name in CASENAME =, or do I ignore that because it says not to enter anything there? That is the most confusing aspect, but other than that, the instructions about specifying the parties are also confusing. 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign, Robert McClenon. But I don't blame you for being confused. I just noticed the unfortunate User:Kharkiv07's hitherto unsuccessful attempts to file a case in the page history and took a look at the template we're told to use for the purpose. What a monster! It used to be simple enough to file a new case! Is that frightening template obligatory? I have no idea how to use it. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Thank you agreeing that the template is confusing. It appears not that I forgot to sign, but that I signed incorrectly with the wrong number of tildes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would somebody like to answer my question (is using the template obligatory)? I hope it's not, but the way it's phrased on the RFAR page implies it is: "To make an arbitration case request: Click here to file a new request", and the "click here" takes you to straight to the template. I realize new users may need a template (whereas people like me are probably more comfortable with the popular method of copying what someone else did), but that template is least of all suited for new users. Anybody? Roger? L235? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
 * There has been some recent discussion of this at WT:AC/C;, to answer your first question, if it looks and feels the same as the template, you can use it - but the onus is on you to make sure everything is correct on the case request. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the preload. People entering things in the "subject/headline" box (and generating a superfluous section header) used to be an actual problem, but MediaWiki was updated to allow us to hide the "subject/headline" box, and the link just needs to be updated to take advantage of that. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot archiving
Hey! The archival bot for this page archived a request that was still open- I thought it would be pretty uncontroversial to unarchive it, but is insisting that the request stay off this page. What is the appropriate avenue for me to solve this conduct problem? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify- this is occurring on the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot auto archives if no comments are made after a set period of time...so that's where your complaint needs to be. Ask to have the length of time extended as to when the bot does the archiving. I assume you had no further comments to make on the matter anyway, right?--MONGO 09:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The request was awaiting an admin close- these requests shouldn't be archived without one. Here is an example of manual unarchiving where the bot has made a mistake. Why do you assert that the bot is the arbiter of whether a request has been resolved or not? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess whoever set the bot archive parameter felt that 4-5 days and no comments means it has no resolution and should get archived. Instead of assuming I'm doing something wrong, why not ask one of the admins who did comment if they wish to pursue the issue further.--MONGO 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PeterTheGreat...you sure have an unhealthy obsession with DHeyward, and there has been administrators that have agreed that you have previously HOUNDED DHeyward to various pages...that is against policy. Frankly, you're efforts to see sanctions brought against this editor seem to stop at nothing and I think the best solution is an interaction ban between yourself and DHeyward.--MONGO 10:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Going to ask one of the commenting admins to either close the AE request or unarchive it for further review.--MONGO 11:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words (Word Count Tool)."
Is this no longer enforced? The 'Abuse of COIN' request seems to have deteriorated into an ever-lengthening answer-and-response free for all, bringing in all sorts of issues that weren't mentioned in the original submission - and I don't think that the endless bickering this has encouraged is going to help resolve the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've enforced it for one editor with over 2500 words. I'm not seeing any other statements above around 650 words. (We usually leave notifications at around 600 words, and start trimming only at the direction of an arbitrator, which has been given.) Thanks for your concern. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 16:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Can we add to the discretionary sanction notification log lead, "The following notifications are therefore expired, and kept for reference purposes only", and courtesy hat the log? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Personally I'd have waited until 3 August (3 months after expiry) but I have no problem with it being done now. Wait for a couple of days before doing anything though in case any of my colleagues object. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ since this will shortly be archived. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

Obsolete sanction
WP:ARBEE has moved to standard discretionary sanctions. However the edit-notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Mass killings under Communist regimes, and the talk page Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes still bear the non-standard sanctions, and as far as I can see they should be updated. I would do it myself, but doubtless that would be contentious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Unless I'm mistaken, those are article-level sanctions imposed pursuant to the authorisation set out in WP:DIGWUREN, now WP:ARBEE, and, so, are not obsolete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The first line on the talk page is
 * In application and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions,
 * So you may be right but it's bloody obscure if so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Digging deeper |this discussion on User:Sandstein's talkpage is where the proposal came from. It is, as I had previously said, based on a now struck version of DS at ARBEE.  It also had some significant objectors, in fact few were happy with the proposal as it stood, but it was proposed by Sandstein, judged consensus by Sandstein and implemented by Sandstein.
 * This, as User:EdJohnston commented seems to have been part of a pattern, extending already contentious restrictions on London Victory Parade of 1946.
 * We can really do without this sort of anomaly, especially perpetually extended.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC).


 * based on a now struck version of DS at ARBEE that really does not matter, because discretionary sanctions are still authorised under ARBEE and page restrictions are mentioned in Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. Not that it matters either, considering that the general rule is that, absent any provision to the contrary, the validity of the imposition of discretionary sanctions has to be evaluated on the basis of the rules in force at the time. Anyway, if, you think those restrictions are no longer needed, then you can appeal them: you can ask Sandstein, or AE or, finally, ARCA. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This went beyond that procedure however, either as it stands now or at the time. In addition the utility of prohibiting certain edits to a fully protected page is dubious to say the least.  However if bureaucratic means are required to lift this sanction, lets try that.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

I don't know whether these restrictions, then imposed in response to lots of edit-warring and the like, are still needed. As I said in response to a similar query on Salvio giuliano's talk page, I don't object to any administrator lifting or changing them as may be required. It might be useful to gather input from editors of the article beforehand, though. I won't be involving myself further because I'm not doing any more arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015
I have received my only warning for harassing fellow wikipedian said, but I was not trying to do that. I was only trying to do what I thought was best for Wikipedia at the time. I would like that warning to be removed because I did what I did in good faith. Please refer to the page User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:5519:FC9:C812:ECA to see what I mean. My house has two ip addresses so the one I'm contacting you with now is not the one that I got the warning on.

99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done You've come to the wrong place, Arbcom is for long drawn out disputes that can't be solved anywhere else. Read WP:TPG, you're allowed to remove warnings from your talk page if you think they're incorrect. Being given an "only warning" template doesn't mean any admin who comes across you is suddenly bound by law to block you immediately. Just take it off your talk page if you think it was unjustified, no one can stop you. Bosstopher (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for an update on the acid admin
Hey I'm posting this here because I'm not sure if there's any better place to post this. A few weeks ago an admin went on an angry rant about their desire to burn another editor in acid. Arbcom said they were looking into this independent of any currently open cases. Will this admin be facing any sanctions, or has Arbcom decided to let it slide. Brustopher (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirected from: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
This edit notice is so large that a "session data" edit failure almost went un-noticed, by me. (All the red text is off screen.) We could reduce the size, I'm sure. Any preferences? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC).


 * I don't see any red text in that editnotice? Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. When an edit fails to save due to "session data lost" there is a red warning.  In the event that you are in "preview" mode, the red warning comes up under the heading "Preview".  In the event that there is a edit notice, it will displace the heading "Preview" down the screen, in this case the edit notice was sufficiently large that "Preview" was the last piece of the page visible.  If I had not happened to catch the word "preview", I might have navigated away without doing another save.  (Why the software doesn't just retry, is a bit of a mystery.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

Ah right I understand you now. Do you have any particular suggestions for what can be trimmed from the notice (or reworded for greater concsiion)? As for why the software doesn't just retry - that's a good question you should ask of one the devs! Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC) For example extra collapsing (and a slight shortening:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

✅ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

The e-cig request
Hasn't this passed the threshold already a couple of days ago? If so, can a clerk open the case? The parties are increasingly arguing with each other on the request page, which is nothing but a waste of everybody's time. Looie496 (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments in My Section
Two editors in good faith added comments in my section in which I endorsed formal mediation for the No Gun Ri massacre request. Since threaded comments are not permitted in Arb requests, will a clerk please move their comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that L235 took care of this request on Tuesday. Just wanted to note that this question was addressed. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence/preliminary comments
The evidence page for this case is already extremely large due to all the preliminary comments that have been copied there. Most however are comments relating to whether or not Malik's desysop was level 1, level 2 or neither, and whether it should be reversed. They are procedural comments, not substantive evidence about behaviour in the P-I topic area. I'm not sure it makes sense to copy every comment to that section, might I suggest that this practice be modified so that: In the meantime, I have removed my premilinary comments from the evidence page, which I presume I am at liberty to do. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence
 * 1) (first preference) It is left to users to decide whether or not they want to base their evidence on their preliminary comments before the case was opened; or
 * 2) (second preference) The clerk opening the case actually considers the substance of the preliminary comments and whether they contain evidence that should be copied to that page (likely to be unduly onerous for the clerks).
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've clarified that users may remove their own preliminary statements if they so choose; are you asking for any other action? Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My action while recused
For everyone's info (in case anyone here cares), this is cross-posted verbatim from my post to clerks-l:

I've also informed clerks-l about the existence of this thread. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Length of statements
, since is at 763 words (over the 650 limit given to him here),  is at 571, and  is at 559, may I assume that the other parties may also exceed the 500 word limit? I am at 482, but could easily add material that is relevant if I don't have a 500 word limit. If the limit does apply, I would ask that it apply to everyone equally. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I trimmed to < 650 Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The clerks' procedures direct us to give some small amount of leeway here. Generally, we will allow ~50-100 words extra to slide if the statement-makers are making a good faith effort to trim; deviation from this should be directed by an arbitrator. (i.e. if you really care about the extra 50-100 words, please make your case to the arbitrators and they will direct us to take further action, if necessary.) Sorry I can't do more. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the response. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If participants put their statements in a smaller font, can they post more than 500 words? Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually at 499 as I'm not counting the words "a", "an", or "the", or signatures. I was always taught to exclude those three articles when counting words. If the clerks disagree with that approach then let me know. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only things that don't count are signatures and (the non-displayed part of) links/diffs. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I need to trim around 20 words then. I'll do that later today. (Update: Done. Trimmed 15 words and now I'm at 499. Phew.)  Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Best to use a word counter, this one is pretty decent and used by a lot of folks on wiki. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on using a word counter. I threw all of my statements into MS Word and used its Word Count function to make sure I was under the limit. It's a lot faster and more accurate than counting it yourself. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:HersfoldArbClerkBot used to tally the counts automatically; not sure what happened to it. NE Ent 11:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It eventually died after left. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well perhaps we can resurrect it (with the committee's asset, of course). I've sent Hersfold an email inquiring about the source code. NE Ent 12:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , did Hersfold end up sending the source code to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the concern and scrutiny over this, I decided to word-count everyone's current statements, using Thryduulf's aforementioned rules. if anyone's interested. Honestly, the 508s and 514s are probably fine; RoseL2P looks like the only one who needs to cut IMHO. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC) (Bold indicates users over the limit.)
 * Looie496 204
 * Jytdog 629
 * Yobol 247
 * Prokaryotes 247
 * GregJackP 550
 * Petrarchan47 494
 * Kingofaces43 496
 * Tryptofish 549
 * John Carter 339
 * AlbinoFerret 279
 * jps 296
 * AndyTheGrump 154
 * DrChrissy 514
 * Atsme 483
 * JzG 701
 * Lfstevens 171
 * RoseL2P 662
 * Beyond My Ken 167
 * Cla68 321
 * alexbrn 208
 * Jtrevor99 499
 * Resolute 178
 * Littleolive oil 488
 * Opabinia regalis 381
 * Geogene 122
 * Roches 386
 * NE Ent 188
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris 178
 * LesVegas 255
 * Montanabw 416
 * Cas Liber 27
 * Minor4th 441
 * Coretheapple 399
 * Jusdafax 500
 * Gandydancer 436
 * Anmccaff 72
 * David Tornheim 487
 * Wuerzele 456
 * EllenCT 170
 * DePiep 263
 * SageRad 311
 * Abductive 194
 * While I thank you for the list and the editors who trimmed their statements, so that they fit under 500 words, there is a certain tolerance (about 10%, I'd say). So, if your statement is 510 words, you don't necessarily have to remove 10 words. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Frankly I think we're all paying too much attention to word counts in a misguided effort to discredit opposing sides in any way possible. I was actually surprised that only one user (Rose2LP) was what I would call "excessive". And as it was edits from today that put them over, I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. Certainly no one here has abused the policy with 2895 word statements. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion one editor was allowed 2895 words, while the other editors limited themselves to 455, 448. 72. and 47 words.


 * I have complained about this several times regarding various arbcom-related pages. The only responses I have received are random arbitrators or clerks promising that the next time the word counts will be enforced. What say we just, you know, start enforcing the rules (with 10% or 20% slack) in the currently open cases instead of promising to start doing so Real Soon Now? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I trimmed my statement down to 488 words (less sig), and apologize to the clerks if I created extra work for you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I don't think 8 extra words hurt anything. We're all just too focused on word count in an attempt to discredit opponents in any way possible! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since we are getting very precise about this whole thing, it might also be worth mentioning that signatures are generally not counted towards the word limit. (Why? They are separately controlled by the general requirement of our guidelines that signatures not be overly lengthy.) AGK  [•] 21:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're probably getting a bit too precise. Ah well. At any rate, to clarify: none of the above counts include signatures, hidden comments, or the hidden parts of links/cites. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hint
The purpose of arbcom pages is to attempt to convince the committee to do the right thing (as you see it). Your goal is, of course, to illustrate that you are here not for any personal reasons, but because you care about Wikipedia and the Wikipedia reader. On a case request, it's best to make your statement as effective and concise as possible -- then your focus should be on the important part of the page: below the line. What's "the line"? It looks like: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0/0> If someone down there asks for something or asks a question you're gonna want to answer. If someone says blah-blah-blah above the line -- especially in the request phase -- not so much. Now, this is totally unofficial free advice that's worth every penny ... but I'd note Doug Weller's statement above "Everything gets considered when we take a case, including action during the case request." Do you really want the committee's impression of you to be arguing over stupid bureaucratic stuff -- especially when the vote is already many-0, meaning it's a slam dunk for opening -- or as someone who is strictly focused on a well sourced, npov encyclopedia? NE Ent 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Gee, I thought the purpose of Arbcom was to deal with behavior issues. My point is that if one editor is going to be able to put all sorts of additional evidence in his statement, then the rest of us should be able to also. Second, not that anyone who has been around doesn't already know, I'm familiar with Arbcom and they are familiar with me. Third, Arbcom isn't about content, it's about behavior. Fourth, I am pretty sure that Arbcom knows that I believe in good sourcing and NPOV—all they have to do is to look at my good and featured content to determine that. If an Arbcom member limits themselves to the word limit when they are part of a case, all of us should do likewise. So, thank you for your input. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading through the leaked ArbCom emails from several years ago, I didn't gain the impression that the members were as methodical, systematic, or as organized in their critical thinking and problem solving as NE Ent implies that they are in his statement above. I hope, however, that the current ArbCom works better as a team than the past ArbComs have. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All models are wrong, some models are useful. -- George Box. I have no knowledge of the internal workings of arbcom, only what I've observed on-wiki (excepting inconsequential emails with individual committee members on privacy related matters). I don't find the concept that the members are human, subject to all the strengths and weaknesses of human groups, particularly surprising or even interesting. My suggestion above is directed at folks interacting with the committee; I've found in real life and Wikipedia that folks tend to live up or live down to the expectations we project. The notion that groups of individuals are imperfect is well established with our mythologies, whether it's the Gods of Olympus, the admirals at Starfleet Command, the Grey Council of Babylon 5, or the elders of Charmed. (Those later Star Wars films were so bad I've totally blanked on the Jedi Council). Arbcom is such a time sink crap job I think the community (and WMF) has been fortunate over the years that we get enough people to volunteer in the first place; while I think it's appropriate for the community to provide feedback on specific issues, but expecting inhuman perfection is pointless. NE Ent 13:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man close
Is Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man open or closed? --Guy Macon (talk)
 * What do you mean? It's open at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ten days with no activity on the clarification request, and Kww appears to have decided to be inactive, so you might want to consider closing this. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to clerks' list asking whether the Committee wants it archived. But I'd guess they're very busy right at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: unilateral addition of Parties?
To the Committee: I don't have a lot of experience with ArbCom, and am unfamiliar with the rules, but I see that Jytdog has added me as a party only minutes after I filed a statement. That looks like clear retaliation to me, seeing as I have not been mentioned in the ArbCom request once to date. What exactly is the rule on this? Am, for example, I allowed to start naming parties I feel are deserving of such a listing, and adding them as well?

This again is a point of order, and I do not wish to debate the overall issue here, but I am concerned that if this addition stands, it could well have a chilling effect on other parties that are semi-involved: in other words, the perception that speaking out could lead to being named as parties by Jytdog, who did not bring this matter to Arb Com. Again, the timing is telling and gives strong appearance of being patently vindictive, especially considering his statements regarding the addition. Thanks in advance. Jus da  fax   13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, only the filing party and arbitrators can add parties to a case; that said, speaking personally, I'm not particularly fussed by the unilateral addition of parties before a case is opened, because drafters will be reviewing the list of parties anyway, adding and removing editors as necessary, once the scope of the case is clear. It also bears mentioning that being listed as a party does not create any presumption of wrongdoing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Then, "technically" am I allowed to object, in this case based on the timing which, again, coming minutes after my posting, and given the edit summary, seems to be filed purely out of spite? If so, is there a mechanism for that? And out of curiousity, would you personally object were I to add a party, or even several? It seems to me that ArbCom should be a place where editors don't have to feel afraid to speak their truth as they see it, and presumptions of wrongdoing aside, without being concerned about demands made on their editing time, which for some of us, is not in unlimited supply.  Jus  da  fax   14:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, at least another editor has been adding parties to the case, so, if we were to remove you, we'd have to remove the ones added by him as well, and we'd probably spend the first couple of days going over who should be added after the case opens; also, I fear you might be overestimating the amount of scrutiny paid, at this stage, to the addition of parties: since no evidence has been presented yet, parties would probably be added summarily by arbitrators as well, after ascertaining that they have edited the topic in question and that their addition was not requested in bad faith. To be perfectly fair, if Jytdog had asked for your addition, rather than adding you directly, I'd probably have greenlit it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the need for further clarification here, so please bear with me, and keep in mind I have fairly limited experience with ArbCom. I am struggling with understanding you, in particular on this point: you have no problem with the timing of the arguably vindictive addition of my name by Jytdog, within minutes of my statement, given the fact that I had previously not once been mentioned in the ArbCom filing? Does this in fact not set a precedent? Jus  da  fax   15:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Jusdafax. I was also added and am not involved with GMO editing.  There are other editors who are involved, like Alexbrn for example, who were not added.  It seems retaliatory to me as well.  I wasn't added until I provided evidence.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that. So now we have a pattern of Jytdog adding editors if they dare to speak out against him? Yet, those speaking for him are not added? Frankly, and with all due respect, my incredulity has got me laughing out loud. Jus  da  fax   15:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything gets considered when we take a case, including action during the case request. And we decide who the parties are. And Salvio is correct, being party conveys no suggestion of wrongdoing. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To Atsme, you appear to have been involved in disputes within the topic area of agricultural technology, so your addition seems reasonable, again until the scope of the case has been determined, which at the time is still unclear; to Jusdafax, your admitted involvement in the topic area and your boil comment make it reasonable to request your addition as well. It may be that your involvement was so minor or so unproblematic that you'll be removed later on, as evidence comes in, or it may even be that you'll remain listed, but no FoF will even be proposed concerning you (that happens somewhat frequently). you have no problem with the timing of the arguably vindictive addition of my name by Jytdog, a little bit, yes. Then again, as I've said, if he had asked that you be added, I'd have said yes, that's why I say I'm not overly fussed by your addition; in the end, I could direct the clerks to remove your name, but, if asked, I'd direct them to add you again, so that would be somewhat pointless... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Salvio, would you be so kind as to explain what dispute I've been involved in regarding agricultural technology? I went back through my edit contributions and was able to answer my own question. I was thinking health and environment rather than agricultural technology although the two are somewhat related. Please excuse my confusion.I'm a bit confused over what constitutes that particular topic and why you mentioned it. Thank you in advance. Doug, thank you for your explanation. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC) added 16:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When I filed this case, I stated that the list of parties was a minimum, and that other parties could be added if necessary. If it is useful, please consider all the additional parties as having been added implicitly by me.  In my view Jusdafax became a possible party as a direct result of filing a statement detailing personal interactions with Jytdog, who lies at the heart of this case.  Regardless of all that, may I gently suggest that badgering the arbitrators is not likely to be a productive approach? Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now wait just a minute there, Looie496. An accusation of badgering on a talk page is a pretty big deal, and I strenuously object. May I "gently suggest" you are out of line on a talk page where editors added in retaliation for their statements in an ArbCom case request', who are asking procedural questions regarding said retaliatory additions, are now being made to feel afraid to speak further? I have to confess I now have grave doubts regarding your neutrality. We are establishing a pattern of retaliation, attempting to get answers, and you want us to shut up. Jus  da  fax   16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I never claimed to be neutral, only uninvolved.  I tried to present the request neutrally for the sake of expediting the process, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from neutral.  As for the rest of that, oh well. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To Looie496 - thank you for the explanation, and I apologize to the arb committee if they interpreted my question to be "badgering". It was not my intention.  I would think there are others who are a bit confused over what this particular case encompasses as the wording is rather general.  If it encompasses fisheries, health, (all living creatures affected by GMO/GMF), and so on.  I imagine the committee may be wondering the same as well.  I trust they will be able to narrow it down which will help set a more realistic course of direction.  Also, if it's going to include any dispute or disagreement that occurred among/between any of the named (involved) editors over an equally broad range of topics, we may want to get our holiday shopping out of the way now. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness for a sense of humour.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC))

I know in the past that arbcom got burned when it added people as parties who were trying to comment as outsiders, but I'm of the opinion that in practice getting involved in arbitration is simply the risk people take if they comment on an arbcom case. If you don't want to be a party, don't comment. That may not inoculate you from being involved in an arbcom case (let's be honest, whether there is a presumption of wrongdoing or not is hardly material as anyone who is a party to an arbcom case, even if they do nothing, will get updates and be at the risk of having evidence included about them, proposals that directly affect them, and remedies that may be of relevance), but it seems a bit strange to me when people comment on arbcom cases with the presumption that they will not have to be involved with the arbitration itself. jps (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for adding parties out of turn; I have self reverted. I didn't know that parties could not be added freely - my bad. It was not out of retaliation by any means; I had been considering whether to request it, but Jusdafax's statement made it clear to me, at least, that he should be added. (Btw, Jusdafax, in some ways it is to your benefit to be a party; it means you get more space to present evidence)   as Jusdafax is clearly involved in the GMO issues, per his statement and my comment, would you please consider adding him as a party, provisionally?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You added someone as a party moments after they disparaged you on the case page, but didn't add the names of other editors who didn't say anything bad about you in their statements? You got a reaction out of Jusdafax here on the talk page, so I guess it was a successful .  Nice one.  Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , if you look at the ANI from which this grew, I discussed Jusdafax there. As I wrote above, I was debating whether to discuss him in my remarks and hadn't done so yet.   I was hoping that Jusdafax would take Tryptofish's remark at ANI to heart, but clearly he hasn't.  When he joined himself, I went ahead and discussed him in my comments and added him as a party (the latter of which I acknowledge was a process error) Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Request addition of JzG/Guy
Given the statement by JzG/Guy in the case request, and their subsequent close at Monsanto legal cases which is being contested, I request that JzG/Guy be added as an involved Party in this case. Thanks. Jus da  fax   18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You want to add everybody who begins to look at this nest of vipers? That is an interesting approach. My article-apace involvement to date includes: removing poorly sourced material from one biography. And, as far as I remember, that's it. I might have forgotten something, feel free to point out other edits, but one does not become involved in an ArbCom case by closing an RfC and removing some badly-sourced material from a tangentially-related BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was added to the case as an involved person, my only involvement in the articles that I can remember is the GMO food RFC The same RFC that Jzg made 7 comments to. AlbinoFerret  23:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was added as a party to the case, and I have never edited in the topic area, never edited the talk pages, and never participated in the various RfC's. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's bonkers. I don't think you are involved either, at least on that basis. It's like playing "six degrees of separation" - half of Wikipedia is "involved" by that token. The anti-GMO editors give the impression of being a monomaniac group with a persecution complex who believe everybody who does not stand shoulder to shoulder with them on the March Against Monsanto is a paid shill and should be forced to answer to the Inquisition for their heresy. And actually I don't think the impression they give is a fair reflection of some of them (though it probably is of others). It's almost GamerGate in its determination to factionalise the issue. For the record, in the absence of any evidence of significant editing of actual content, I would support your removal as a claimed party and step 1 has to be assessing who has actually played a meaningful part in the dispute. It looks to be a subset of those listed and perhaps one or two others, but I have only started to look it over in the last day or so. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG, you closed a related RfC as an uninvolved admin when you've expressed in your case statement here that you have a personal POV on the topic, then take issue with being listed as a party to the case? Do I have this right?  Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My POV is that in matters of objectively verifiable fact, the scientific method is the correct tool to use. If you think this POV is not neutral then you need to rewrite our policies. There is certainly a problem with some people thinking that science is the opposite of anti-GMO, but since that's based on fallacious reasoning we're entitled to ignore it. In respect of Monsanto, I grudginly accept that we must protect their article against attack. I dislike and mistrust them, it pains me to be fair to them, but fair we must be. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think that has a clear viewpoint or perspective on the issue of sourcing for scientific matters, but I also think that he closed the RfC correctly. Having a perspective on science does not make one "involved" nor does it make them a partisan of one side or the other.  By the same token JzG, I'm included in the GMO dispute and I really don't have a dog in the hunt, because I don't care which side is correct on the science—my issue is the proper inclusion of legal material and the hounding of PraeceptorIP by Jytdog. I'm afraid that a number of people are going to be included despite their lack of interest in Monsanto or GMOs.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my most recent comment. I think step 1 has to be to prune the list of participants. A lot of them don't seem to em to have any significant involvement - there's an overlap with other areas of long-standing contention but the core warriors are a subset of those listed (and the list of core warriors may itself be incomplete). Guy (Help!) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When we open the case we will sort out the list of parties. It is also worth repeating, as we have to do repeatedly it seems, that being listed as a party to a case implies no wrongdoing and does not mean that there will be any findings of fact or remedies related to you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but it doesn't stop a lot of trips down the rabbit hole along the way. I am happy to hear that the list will be reviewed. Does there need to be some independent summary of involvement by edit stats? Otherwise it may take you a while, some of the parties have a lot of edits and in many cases this spreads across a lot of articles. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Better yet, ya'll could follow your procedure -- a case will proceed to arbitration.. (emphasis mine). The way I'm counting Yunshui was accept 7, making the count 7 / 13, so the case should have been opened four days ago. Leaving it this "unalive" state is simply acting as a drama magnet. If it's simply impossible get 'er open, have a clerk wrap the case request with something like:

existing content

(forgot to sign) NE Ent
 * Request to clerk - Please delete the unsigned comment by NE Ent currently just above, which inappropriately adds a template that could confuse readers. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   20:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to be confused. I added the template to the page with some modifications as a WP:BOLD WP:IAR type of move because reasons. jps (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been better to ping the clerks and  and ask them to archive the request phase before doing this edit. It stops any new editors from making a statement or editors who have made a statement perhaps correcting what is there.  AlbinoFerret  21:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Renew request for JzG/Guy to be added to this case
Call me unobservant, but I just discovered this block a couple months ago of SageRad, a named a party to this case, by Administrator JzG/Guy. To repeat: Given the statement by JzG/Guy in the case request, and their subsequent close of an Rfc initiated by SageRad at Monsanto legal cases, where SageRad has argued for inclusion of trial cases filed by various cities against Monsanto, the corporation which is in the heart of the GMO subject field, I feel strongly that an Administrator active in this area needs scrutiny as part of this GMO case by uninvolved ArbCom members, and I renew my request that JzG/Guy be added. Jus da  fax   20:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you can put all of that together in the Evidence phase of the actual arbitration. No one will get mad at you for doing that. jps (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A rather bold and noncompliant action
I beg the committee's pardon, but the following action may require your attention as it appears to be done to prevent other editors from being named as "involved",, not that the latter was an issue from the beginning as committee members already explained above. His action speaks volumes as does his edit summary: '' /* GMO articles */ Being Bold. Per talk.'' What I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (JPS) just did was out of order and an insult to ArbCom and the clerks. It also serves to demonstrate a fraction of the disruptive behavior that is actually at the root of this case. The offending editor should also be named as one of the involved parties. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I commented on the edit above, pinging the clerks. My main concern is that it stops other editors from leaving a statement that perhaps have just become aware of the case. Not everyone edits constantly. It also prevents editors already involved from possibly fixing any problems with their statements. AlbinoFerret  22:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this act is way out of order. I have never heard of a non-Arb/non Clerk accepting a case. Does it get any more disruptive? Jus  da  fax   22:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prevent anybody from doing anything, since TheEditorFormerlyKnownAsScienceApologist doesn't have any special status here. It looks almost like he is trying to provoke another site ban.  But really editing statements is a waste of effort at this point. Looie496 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitebanning someone from a wiki for trying an experiment on a wiki would be rich. :) jps (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case an ArbCom member has reverted it. Jus  da  fax   23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If adn't already done it, I would ave done it myself.  Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Length of statements
, since is at 763 words (over the 650 limit given to him here),  is at 571, and  is at 559, may I assume that the other parties may also exceed the 500 word limit? I am at 482, but could easily add material that is relevant if I don't have a 500 word limit. If the limit does apply, I would ask that it apply to everyone equally. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I trimmed to < 650 Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The clerks' procedures direct us to give some small amount of leeway here. Generally, we will allow ~50-100 words extra to slide if the statement-makers are making a good faith effort to trim; deviation from this should be directed by an arbitrator. (i.e. if you really care about the extra 50-100 words, please make your case to the arbitrators and they will direct us to take further action, if necessary.) Sorry I can't do more. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the response. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If participants put their statements in a smaller font, can they post more than 500 words? Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually at 499 as I'm not counting the words "a", "an", or "the", or signatures. I was always taught to exclude those three articles when counting words. If the clerks disagree with that approach then let me know. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only things that don't count are signatures and (the non-displayed part of) links/diffs. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I need to trim around 20 words then. I'll do that later today. (Update: Done. Trimmed 15 words and now I'm at 499. Phew.)  Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Best to use a word counter, this one is pretty decent and used by a lot of folks on wiki. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on using a word counter. I threw all of my statements into MS Word and used its Word Count function to make sure I was under the limit. It's a lot faster and more accurate than counting it yourself. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:HersfoldArbClerkBot used to tally the counts automatically; not sure what happened to it. NE Ent 11:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It eventually died after left. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well perhaps we can resurrect it (with the committee's asset, of course). I've sent Hersfold an email inquiring about the source code. NE Ent 12:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , did Hersfold end up sending the source code to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the concern and scrutiny over this, I decided to word-count everyone's current statements, using Thryduulf's aforementioned rules. if anyone's interested. Honestly, the 508s and 514s are probably fine; RoseL2P looks like the only one who needs to cut IMHO. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC) (Bold indicates users over the limit.)
 * Looie496 204
 * Jytdog 629
 * Yobol 247
 * Prokaryotes 247
 * GregJackP 550
 * Petrarchan47 494
 * Kingofaces43 496
 * Tryptofish 549
 * John Carter 339
 * AlbinoFerret 279
 * jps 296
 * AndyTheGrump 154
 * DrChrissy 514
 * Atsme 483
 * JzG 701
 * Lfstevens 171
 * RoseL2P 662
 * Beyond My Ken 167
 * Cla68 321
 * alexbrn 208
 * Jtrevor99 499
 * Resolute 178
 * Littleolive oil 488
 * Opabinia regalis 381
 * Geogene 122
 * Roches 386
 * NE Ent 188
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris 178
 * LesVegas 255
 * Montanabw 416
 * Cas Liber 27
 * Minor4th 441
 * Coretheapple 399
 * Jusdafax 500
 * Gandydancer 436
 * Anmccaff 72
 * David Tornheim 487
 * Wuerzele 456
 * EllenCT 170
 * DePiep 263
 * SageRad 311
 * Abductive 194
 * While I thank you for the list and the editors who trimmed their statements, so that they fit under 500 words, there is a certain tolerance (about 10%, I'd say). So, if your statement is 510 words, you don't necessarily have to remove 10 words. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Frankly I think we're all paying too much attention to word counts in a misguided effort to discredit opposing sides in any way possible. I was actually surprised that only one user (Rose2LP) was what I would call "excessive". And as it was edits from today that put them over, I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. Certainly no one here has abused the policy with 2895 word statements. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion one editor was allowed 2895 words, while the other editors limited themselves to 455, 448. 72. and 47 words.


 * I have complained about this several times regarding various arbcom-related pages. The only responses I have received are random arbitrators or clerks promising that the next time the word counts will be enforced. What say we just, you know, start enforcing the rules (with 10% or 20% slack) in the currently open cases instead of promising to start doing so Real Soon Now? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I trimmed my statement down to 488 words (less sig), and apologize to the clerks if I created extra work for you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I don't think 8 extra words hurt anything. We're all just too focused on word count in an attempt to discredit opponents in any way possible! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Since we are getting very precise about this whole thing, it might also be worth mentioning that signatures are generally not counted towards the word limit. (Why? They are separately controlled by the general requirement of our guidelines that signatures not be overly lengthy.) AGK  [•] 21:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're probably getting a bit too precise. Ah well. At any rate, to clarify: none of the above counts include signatures, hidden comments, or the hidden parts of links/cites. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: this, yes you, Jtrevor99, are getting a bit too precise. I was well below that, but waiting for this case to actually begin is getting to be like waiting for Godot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just providing info; as I've stated several times I'm not telling you you have to cut it. That's up to the clerks and Arbs to decide, not me. Meanwhile, if you want to avoid criticism, cut it 50 words. I had to do that to avoid GregJackP's criticism when he started this entire discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015
Hello, I'm a new user, and I was wondering if this would be the correct place the put in arbitration request, thanks. New User Person (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of this page "please click here to file and arbitration case" - Arjayay (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: AUSC Extension
The Arbitration Committee is currently examining several reforms of the Audit Subcommittee and asks for community input on how they would like to see the Subcommittee function in the future. Because of this, the current Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members' terms are hereby extended to 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
 * Supporting: AGK, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui
 * Opposing: Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this and the future of the AUSC at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Motion: Philippe Beaudette to be given CU and OS tools (October 2015)

 * Original discussion



, who recently retired from the post of Director of Community Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation, is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter. Philippe has experience using both tools both on the English Wikipedia and others, including supporting the community in the WikiPR case and the recent Orangemoody incident.
 * Support
 * 1) as proposer. Doug Weller (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  12:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) L Faraone  14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Tweaked motion; we are passing a motion to appoint, not to propose appointing. Yes, this wording was left over from the initial idea. (Look,  being right, as usual ;) ) Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 9)    Roger Davies  talk 09:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) While I would have preferred a different method for this, like NE Ent states below, I fully support Philippe getting the tools. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * 1) In favor of appointment but I would have preferred some sort of community consultation period bare minimum. NativeForeigner Talk 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) In favor of appointment but I would have preferred some sort of community consultation period bare minimum. NativeForeigner Talk 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Recuse

Community comments (Philippe Beaudette to be given CU and OS tools)
This isn't about the individual. WMF and en-wiki are supposed to be separate and distinct entities, a distinction often lost on wiki-outsiders. According to us, a Revolving door leads analysts to "claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government," (We're private sector, WMF is government in the analogy). It's a tone-deaf unnecessary entanglement between en-wiki and WMF functionaries; this notion that Philippe is "just a volunteer now" is ridiculous -- has an arbcom ever processed a single-individual CU/OS motion from proposal to majority in less than 12 hours? Last time ya'll considered CU/OS you allowed 12 days of community consultation, and it was 26 days from notice to announcement. We get enough Protocols of the Elders of Wikipedia nonsense when you necessarily have to be circumspect due to privacy issues without unnecessarily fueling it with hasty actions like this. Would it benefit Wikipedia for Philippe to eventually have CU/OS access? Most likely. But the appropriate way to do that is put him in the pool with the other candidates the next go round, not by unprecedented I think extraordinary motion. NE Ent 01:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record: I appreciate the committee's interest in this new role for me, and it is, indeed, one that I would enjoy taking on, should the discussion result in that. I do believe that I have certain skills and instincts developed over the years that I could exercise here in support of the community.  It probably doeesn't need to be said, but i support this motion. :) -Philippe  (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a checkuser and oversighter, and being aware of certain activities that would benefit significantly from the participation of an experienced CU in particular, I encourage the committee to support this. No need for any education or training, Philippe can walk right into the role and start working at a high level of competence immediately without the encumbrances of other responsibilities. Risker (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support this motion, and strongly encourage the Committee to adopt it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a little unorthodox, but makes eminent sense. Philippe's experience would likely prove extremely useful. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether this is a good idea, considering the issues discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 25. Perhaps it would help if someone explained exactly under what situations Philippe would be using CU and whether he would by nature of his position be immune from the sort of scrutiny that other CU users are subject to. --Guy Macon (talk) See comment below
 * , Philippe is no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. He is a community member, and any checkuser, oversight, or administrator actions he takes are taken as a volunteer following the policies and procedures that all other volunteer checkusers, oversighters and administrators are expected to meet. The responsibilities for WP:OFFICE are vested in the Wikimedia Foundation, of which Philippe is no longer an employee.  Risker (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have no objection at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes a great deal of sense and I hope the committee accepts the motion. Philippe's common sense combined with familiarity with the tools would be a great asset. Yes, I'm aware that I've used "sense" and "great" twice within two sentences.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I too endorse the proposed motion. I also agree with Risker's response to Guy Macon's question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it phrased this way? If it passes, I assume the intent is that Philippe becomes a CU/OS.  But the way it's worded, it sounds like if it passes, ArbCom will propose (to someone?) that he be made a CU/OS. That said, it makes perfect sense to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess (only that!) is that one of the arbitrators originally wrote "I propose that ..." and then someone turned it into a motion without tweaking the wording much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the motion, but Floquenbeam is right, it's odd wording. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Loooks like this is sailing through, as it should. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to have passed, so consider this a pile-on: I fully support this idea, despite its irregularity, and commend whoever came up with it -- Doug Weller, I guess -- for thinking outside the box to the benefit of Wikipedia. Well done. BMK (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Record for number of opening statements?
Anyone have any idea what the record for the number of opening statements in a request is, and, maybe more directly, whether this request is the record holder? John Carter (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there are so many statements when the problem statement is so unclear. What specifically is ArbCom being asked to decide here? Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think because they screwed up in the last go-round by abrogating more power to themselves they are now getting the unintended consequence that they are expected to handle everything related to Eric Corbett. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

Other channels
I believe there used to be a "condition" that all other dispute resolution channels had been exhausted before an ANI request could be brought. Of course, partly becasue of the pervasiveness of ArbCom rulings, several other channels have been closed down in recent years. Nonetheless there are surely some steps that can be taken outwith Arbcom? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

Amendment request: Waenceslaus
Original discussion

Initiated by Waenceslaus at 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Longevity topic related articles


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Longevity topic related articles
 * Kind request of the user Waenceslaus to get un-topic-banned in the field of longevity.

Statement by Waenceslaus
Greetings, I am a Wikipedian from Poland since June 17, 2014. My main area of interest is the study of extreme longevity. I have been topic banned in August of 2015 on the basis of misunderstanding regarding the consideration of reliability of sources used for the topic related articles. Being unaware of new settings, I reverted a destructive edit which removed a source that has always been considered as reliable and as a result my account was topic-banned for all the longevity related articles. I consider this decision as very unfortunate for the reason that it has been forced too fast so that I didn't have an opportunity neither to say anything in my defense nor explain the position I took. Over the past year of my activity in this area, I have made many constructive edits as seen in my contributions' page. Furthermore, I have created many new articles related in the topic area such as List of Polish supercentenarians, Aleksandra Dranka, List of Czech supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary, List of supercentenarians born in the Russian Empire, List of supercentenarians from the Nordic countries, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of supercentenarians of the Caribbean, List of supercentenarians from Oceania, Maria Pogonowska. I believe that I brought much for this branch with my work and I am still willing to contribute further. Therefore my kind plea. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
This appeal should go elsewhere. The ban was *not* under discretionary sanctions. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895.

This was a regular community topic ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in August, 2015. It's been entered in WP:RESTRICT. The editor was notified here on user talk. There are discretionary sanctions provided under the Longevity case but FP did not use them. So unless Arbcom thinks there was something abusive here, there is nothing for User:Waenceslaus to appeal in this forum. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Waenceslaus: Clerk notes

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



Waenceslaus: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Decline as a valid community sanction -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Valid community sanction, that even if we could overturn, I see absolutely no reason why it should be. Courcelles (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, this is the wrong venue, as appeals of community sanctions should go to Arbitration/Requests/Case; then again, as far as I'm concerned, there's no point in moving this thread there, since I don't see any reason for us to overturn the sanction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. While theoretically we can review community sanctions, we would only overturn them in cases where there were very serious issues. Even if filed properly, there isn't any chance we would overturn this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Ed Johnston. On the basis that there wasn't anything abusive, decline. NativeForeigner Talk 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per Salvio. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline. L Faraone  21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline per EdJohnston. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall I even pile on? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to define scope of arbitration cases
Three years ago, a discussion was initiated on improving the arbitration process. At that time I proposed that when the arbitration committee accepts a case, it should include a brief statement delineating the scope being reviewed, to ensure that the presented evidence is focused on the intended area of dispute to be resolved. There may be times when the committee would like to keep the scope open-ended, which it can specify in its statement. This would save time for both the participants and the arbitration committee.

Taking the "Arbitration enforcement 2" case as an example: the participants are left guessing what evidence is within scope and is applicable. In addition, it's not clear why the workshop phase has been eliminated: my assumption is that the committee felt that its desired scope for the evidence phase overlapped with the usual purpose for the workshop phase and so the workshop is unnecessary. By writing a short paragraph at the opening of a case outlining its scope, the committee can avoid guesswork and make the process more effective. Can the committee consider modifying its procedures so that a case's scope is described when it is opened? isaacl (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, people present what they think is relevant, and committee decides what they think is relevant - it's not going to change regardless, and there is probably never going to be some code of evidence like a court. Why no workshop for this case?  Probably, because there just was a lengthy workshop on the same issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing to do, rather than requiring more bureaucracy, is just to ask for clarification on the appropriate case talkpage if you are unclear about what the scope is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a lot of bureaucracy for the drafting arbitrator to write one to three sentences describing the scope of the case. It's not a question of requiring a code of evidence or anything: it just saves everyone's time by focusing their efforts and avoiding digressions. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What happened to my case?
I made a topic ban appeal some days ago on the project page and don't see it anymore. It seems to be removed. Can my case be verified? Has my appeal been declined or accepted? Can somebody please help me here? Thank you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears to still be there: Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but why has it been archived?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I found it now. Thank you for pointing it out.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Former arbitrator access to advanced permissions (December 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Beeblebrox
In the same email of September 13 referenced in the above request, I asked if I, as a former arbitrator who voluntarily gave up CU access for non-controversial reasons, could have it back upon request or would have to go through he normal appointment process whenever the next time that happens to be deemed necessary. One arb commented that they thought I should be able to just get it back, and I got no further replies or information. In the past year we have seen multiple instances of mass paid editing socks, as well as serious backlogs at SPI. I'd like to be able to pitch in with this, and as there is usually training for new CUs right after the new arbcom is seated, now would be a perfect time to join the team and get up to speed on the use of the tool, but I'm still unsure as to whether I can simply be given back the tool, or if I have to wait for the next formal appointment process, so I'd like that matter clarified, and if the answer is that I can just have it back I would ask that the committee file the appropriate request with the stewards. thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your objection ignores acknowledges but seems to discount the fact that the community elected me to arbcom in the first place and if I had not voluntarily given up CU while still an arb I would still have it now. This is about clarifying an ambiguity in the existing policy. If you do not like that arbs are automatically granted these rights you are free to open a discussion aimed at changing that policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Philippe surely did not need to go through the standard process. He was the staff contact person for functionary and arb matters and due to that position had already had access to the full toolset for years. Per WP:NOTBURO there was no reason to force him to wait for the normal process, which takes place on average once a year, sometimes less. We need more people on the team, if they're are qualified (or in his case, over qualified) people who already had the tools in other roles it's an easy IAR situation. The accusation that they are trying to sneak this in under the wire is just pure ABF. I'm the one who has been pressuring them about it, to the point I was worried I might have pissed them off bad enough that they wouldn't do it at all. The only timing concern, as I clearly stated above, is that new arbs get CU training sessions and if I can get the tool back I can slip in there with them next month instead of trying to find someone to do it just for me at some point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Without much knowledge (or interest) in the minutia of ArbCom/functionaries rules and regulations regarding this, I'd like to suggest that, since Beeblebrox is known to be a responsible admin and a respected member of the community, WP:IAR be applied here. The action which would help to improve the project's goal of building an encyclopedia is not Talmudic contemplation to determine the specific answer to Beeblebrox's question, but simply restoring the CU function to him so he can help in the ways that he has pointed out he will. BMK (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
As with the other out-of-process granting of CU/OS rights recently to an ex-WMF staff member, there is a distinct whiff of lack of community consultation about this sort of thing. Even in the link posted by BBrox above, the word 'community' is involved at all parts of the process. The only way to do it without community consultation is to effectively IAR and ignore process completely. IAR is designed for where a specific rule is preventing/hindering an improvement to the encyclopedia, it is NOT meant to be used to ignore a policy that is in place to make sure that only the most trusted people gain access to large amounts of private data! At least in this case there is the prior history that BBrox was at least promoted by the community to a position previously where he had that access. So there is an argument that he already has had the backing to justify it. However opinions change. (FYI, I have absolutely no objection to him having access personally.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is that this is the second case in a short period of time where the written policy designed specifically to enable community consultation on the granting of advanced permissions is basically going to be ignored flat out by Arbcom. Either amend the policy to say 'OS/CU will be granted or taken away by Arbcom at their leisure with no community input' or follow the procedures as they are laid out. When existing best practice is ignored for favoured individuals, it lessens the strength of the policy and makes it worthless. Given the current arbcom elections, it also has the ring of 'lets get away with this because the incoming squad wouldnt do it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I think I disagree with Only in death that granting this request would represent a change of policy. The usual rule for years has been that a holder of advanced permissions, who relinquishes them voluntarily and outside controversial circumstances (not "under a cloud") may have the permission restored upon request.

Beeblebrox's request may not quite be a straightforward application of that rule, because one could distinguish an arbitrator who was granted CU and/or OS ex officio from others who received CU/OS through the appointment process, but I think the rule still provides a close analogy and precedent. Upon leaving the ArbCom, Beeblebrox would have been eligible to retain the CU and/or OS he had at the time, but he chose to give them up, it transpires temporarily. In the absence of any reason to believe he's less trustworthy or knowledgeable now than he was then, the case for applying the presumption of reinstatement seems a reasonable one.

(As a COI note, I am also a former arbitrator who gave up checkusership and oversighthood when I left the Committee in January, and have occasionally wished for one of them back when I saw a CU or OS request demanding attention, so any precedent here could potentially apply to me someday. And as a mild irony, the "automatic reinstatement except in controversial circumstances/under a cloud" rule actually does seem to have been a rare instance of policy creation in an arbitration decision to begin with. See, Requests for arbitration/Giano. But this happened in 2006, and in the nine years since then no one but me seems ever to have noticed this fact, suggesting that the community is thoroughly satisfied with the rule.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (BB)
The whole CU/OS permissions system is a nepotistic mess. And this is by no means the only case where ArbCom has made policy, either de facto or de jure, something, as NewYorkBrad notes, they are explicitly prohibited from doing (and I don't include "ad hoc" representations of policy that are at odds with – or even 180° opposed to – written policy. Shades of "penumbra and emanations"?  If only they were that mild.)

Nonetheless this reinstatement is uncontroversial, and is understood to be an acceptable process, until and unless there is a different process such requests should be granted. For the future, it is worth considering a more cautious approach than with the admin bit, perhaps with a central notice, and an out-of-band confirmation of identity.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Rschen7754
For the record, I think there is precedent for this, i.e. Hersfold following his first resignation. --Rschen7754 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Former arbitrator access to advanced permissions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Again we were dealing with this yesterday and should announce it today. This is straightforward and my personal apology for not getting back to Beeblebrox yesterday which would have saved everyone time. Doug Weller (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we were one vote short of gathering enough supports to formally post the re-appointment (and there were no opposes). This should be done soon. Courcelles (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. See : Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Decline -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic ban appeal (December 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nadirali at 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Nadirali unblocked


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Nadirali is indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed. […]


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


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Nadirali unblocked
 * Topic ban appeal


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

Statement by Nadirali
As expressed in the title, I am finally here to appeal my topic ban but also with a new proposal. As it is, it's been about a year and a half since I re-joined Wikipedia. Worm That Turned told me to show the arbcom that I can be a productive user in one of my first conversations with him (probably part of gaining the arbcom's trust). In the year and a half since I returned, I have created almost thirty pages (most of which I can guarantee would not exist today had I not returned to create them) with the intention of creating more and made hundreds of edits on various topics. I think it should be more than sufficient enough to earn the trust of the committee. There are a number of articles on Pakistan that need updating and others that need creation and I'm just the man to do it.

I still intend to create and work on articles not related to Pakistan topics, but would like to work on those side by side as well. But if the arbcom is still worried about my edits on these topics I come with the proposal of a restriction of one revert per week on any topics on or related to Pakistan as well as India and Afghanistan (excluding vandalism) for that matter so I can continue creating and working on some of my desired topics without worrying the arbcom. If I can continue for at least a month with this one-revert-per-week restriction without worrying the committee, then the topic ban should be lifted all together. I also offer to stay away from articles sanctioned by the committee, but I'll let the arbcom decide on that.

However, if the committee continues to enforce a complete ban, all I can term it as obstructing a user from contributing in his best ability and therefor obstructing the development of Wikipedia all together. I think this topic ban is ridiculous when going back to it's roots, but I'd rather not get into what happened several years ago. I am here to express that I kept my end of the deal and wish for the committee to give something back, specifically trust, in return.

Looking forward to your responses.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal: Clerk notes

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



Topic ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Having reviewed your recent contributions, I think a relaxation or removal of these restrictions could be acceptable. L Faraone  21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing them. Doug Weller (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like the tone of the last paragraph of this appeal, but that aside I'm prepared to agree the relaxation of the restriction to the suggested one revert per article per week in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thrydulf's  suggestion.  DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will draft a motion -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any movement on that motion? Should be fairly straightforward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk about tunnel vision on my part. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Nadirali


Proposed:


 * 's topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

Enacted - Kharkiv07  ( T ) 21:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As proposer -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) As noted below I would have preferred a relaxation, but I am prepared to support this as a second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Like Thryduulf, I'd rather this be a relaxation rather than an outright repeal, but, not going to argue. Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I would rather a relaxation than a suspension here, as discussed above. I'm presently undecided whether this preference is strong enough that I should support or oppose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about DS
Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for Scientology broadly construed. The BLP Rick Alan Ross was involved in the case and much of his notability has to do with his conflict with Scientology through the Jason Scott case. Right now there is no notice that the page is subject to DS. Do I need to go through ARCA or an admin to place the notice or may I do that myself? J bh Talk  13:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC) PS I thought I was posting on ARCA talk but that redirects here. J bh Talk
 * Actually his BLP is quite tangential at most -  if we placed every single person who has commented on Scientology under DS, we would have to add about fifty science fiction writers and editors, and several hundred others into that category.  RAR was not just involved with Scientology, but religious cults/sects/movements in general,  and the files he has are apparently not primarily about Scientology.   I would further note that this extension to "five degrees of separation" would include all lawyers and judges in any cases involving Scientology, sociologists who have commented on Scientology or on persons associated with Scientology, etc.  Rather, only those claims directly related  to Scientology should be viewed as related to Scientology, and, as far as I can tell, no one has made any contentious claims remotely connected to Scientology on that BLP.   At such time as such contentious edits are made is the point where an admin might decide to protect that BLP, but this sort of "let's connect it to an ArbCom case in advance" seems a tad premature at best.  Collect (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is covered by DS, for its subject is a living person (see NEWBLPBAN). Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummmm.... are you reading the same article about the same person I am? The one about a person who says Scientology specifically targeted him in a court case leading to his bankruptcy; Who was subject to impersonation by unknown individuals; who was a named party in the Scientology Arbcom case; Who, just last week, brought up the references Rick Ross has a new book that will help you get someone out of Scientology and Where is all began for us - Rick Ross, David Koresh and The Church of Scientology; Who said "Even the news coverage of the Jason Scott case essentially reported that it was a Scientology scheme." and "The Scott case is most notable through news coverage as a Scientology scheme to destroy the Cult Awareness Network and me." . There are at least a half dozen other references with Scientology in the title presented by Ross himself just in the last several days. Here is the title of one of his suggested edits [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross/Archive_5#Jason_Scott.27s_lawyer_Kendrick_Moxon_and_involvement_of_Scientology_in_Scott_lawsuit 1.6 Jason Scott's lawyer Kendrick Moxon and involvement of Scientology in Scott lawsuit]  (FYI there are 105 occurences of Scientology in that archive) There are, at this time, 25 mentions of Scientology on the talk page, more than half made by the subject of the BLP describing his own biography. Seems pretty clear that this would fit under narrowly construed and I would say broadly construed is easily met. You say five degrees of separation when adjacency is the term you are looking for.  Scientology is obviously central to the dynamics of this BLP  and NEWBLPBAN relates only to biographical content when description of the Jason Scott case and Scientology's attacks on the subject are likely to be issues particularly when weighing sources. For instance when discussing using a critical source - "Gordon Melton works for cults as an expert witness and groups called cults have funded his research. See He is a contentious biased source. He is recommended as a resource by Scientology. "  (emp. mine) Cheers.  J bh  Talk  19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging . We are talking about him after all. J bh  Talk  19:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been threatened, harassed and sued by a number of groups called cults. There are links to secondary sources on my bio Talk page regarding such litigation and harassment. One of the groups that has harassed me over the years is Scientology. This has been reported by the press. A Scientology private inestigator informed David Koresh that I was deprogramming one of his Davidian followers. Scientology had its lead lawyer Kendrick Moxon pursue me for six years regarding the Scott case. First, Moxon lobbied the prosecutor to file criminal charges, which ended in acquittal. Subsequently he filed a civil suit. Scientology gathers what it calls "dead agent files" on its perceived enemies. My dead agent file is partially cited online through the Scientology front group "Religious Freedom Watch"    I have frequently been interviewed by the media about Scientology and have testified as a court expert witness once about Scientology. Scientology has declared me a SP (Suppressive Person) and placed me on its enemies list, which means that I am subject to its "fair game" policy.  Having said that I have testified as an expert witness in court about 20 times and am notable as an expert about cults generally. The Cult Education Institute database includes thousands of documents, reports and articles about hundreds of groups, some that have been called cults.  There is one subsection about Scientology.  My book "Cults Inside Out" includes one chapter about Scientology and one chapter about a Scientology intervention, but the book discusses many groups called cults and has other chapters about interventions concerning other groups. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please explain how this request for DS notice would affect my bio Talk page or BLP generally and/or specifically. Could this potentially limit or censor anyone? If so who would be limited, potentially sanctioned and how would this work?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The result would likely be that you would be officially barred from any comments whatsoever about your BLP, or any article whatsoever about cults/Scientology entirely on any Wikipedia page, noticeboard, or userspace.  Collect (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So the purpose of the request is to exclude me from commenting at the Talk page of my bio. I cannot edit my bio, but it was decided at Wikipedia BLP Noticeboard that I can comment on the Talk page and suggest possible edits, point out factual errors, etc. Is this an attempt to circumvent decisions previously made often called "forum shopping"? Jbhunley recently asked me to stop participating at the Talk page for "six or eight months." Now he wants me banned? Rick Alan Ross (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not. How do you figure that!!!???!!! Again, I ask, are you reading the same Discretionary Sanctions description I am? For your reference as well as that of  - who you have distressed for no good reason I can see - please read Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions.  Collect, you really need to explain how your statement above has any relationship to truth or reality, which I suggest it has to neither, else I suggest you strike it.  J bh  Talk  00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I simply read the decision on which the DS was based - and its use of banning folks on the basis of any affiliations they held.
 * Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
 * I trust the language which has not been superseded by the general use of the catch-all DS motion is clear enough.  And since that language is still operative, I trust you will redact your claim that my post has no "relationship to truth or reality"  which I find less than cordial at best.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @RR I, and several other editors, asked you to step back because you are flooding the talk page and not letting anything settle - I explained my reasoning in detail [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross#Comment here]. Neither I nor anyone care how long you take off - though in my frustration I did recommend 6-8 months - so long as you stop dominating the talk page with nearly daily different requests. J bh  Talk  00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to me that a topic ban on that person is exactly what you are seeking here. Correct? Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you're told, User:Rick Alan Ross. I really don't know what Collect is on about. As Salvio (an arbitrator) has pointed out above, the article is already under discretionary sanctions because it's a BLP, per this arbcom motion (point 6). When I recently topic banned an editor from Rick Alan Ross and related pages (later replaced by a voluntary ban), it was per the BLP discretionary sanctions. Any editor who is disruptive wrt a bio of a living person can be topic banned from it. That includes the subject, certainly, but an admin would have to find you disruptive to do that to you, RAR. A DS template on the article talkpage makes no difference, and such a template certainly couldn't hurt you. It wouldn't change the situation. I agree with Jbhunley that Collect has distressed RAR for no good reason. That's called shit-stirring. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Jbh was asking specifically for the Scientology DS results (and he had previously supported a topic ban, as far as I can tell, for "6 to 8 months") - which go far beyond the BLP sanctions applicable to single articles.   My statements were and are accurate of the Scientology rules are applied.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Collect, are you trying to achieve something with these statements plucked out of thin air? "Far beyond the BLP sanctions applicable to single articles" is just nonsense. I recently topic banned a user indefinitely from Rick Alan Ross and related pages, and I'd do it again if it was called for. That's a perfectly normally "applicable" sanction wrt BLPs. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
 * If RR is topic banned from Scientology then he indeed should not be editing his article as it, without question, is related to Scientology broadly construed. Since he is, to the best of my knowledge, not I see no point to your comment. If your contention is that he is I suggest we close this and move to WP:AE. Do you contend User:Rick Alan Ross is topic banned from Scientology? J bh  Talk  00:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS and no, Collect. I asked him to take a break because I and at least three others felt he was disrupting the article and should take a step back and let us address the matters he had already brought up. Since I pinged you to that comment, linked above, I assume you read it. J bh  Talk  00:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Bishonen is correct and Collect is mistaken. The finding related to RAR in the Scientology case and the associated remedy do not include a topic ban, so Collect's quote about "[e]ditors topic banned by remedies" in the ArbCase do not apply to RAR. Topic banning the subject of a BLP from the article's talk page would not be done lightly, Rick Alan Ross, but it is within the discretion of an administrator under the BLP ruling. However, it would be appealable and overturnable if there was not good evidence of problematic behaviour. Tagging the article with a Scientology DS notice puts people on notice but does not change the authority to act using BLP DS provisions which already exists. EdChem (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Scientology Case applies to all articles placed under DS due to Scientology concerns - that is, any admin who cites the Scientology case intrinsically includes the entire area broadly construed - the committee has never alter that result. The querying editor has in the past written " He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and, in my opinion, should be topic banned from all maters relating to Rick Alan Ross and cults/Scientology broadly construed or simply blocked since I seriously doubt he would edit anything else if banned from subjects that relate to himself. Pinging other editors involved with the saga " (8 Nov 2015)  and "TL/DR he has used up the grace from the Scientology issues. If a BLP issue comes up he can and should expect it to be addressed promptly but the micromanaging of his article needs to stop." (9 Nov 2015)  indicating that the querying editor well knows the history of the Scientology arbitration case, and the difference between DS for it and for simple BLP DS.   I was pointing out that the querying editor did, in fact, wish to refer to the far broader Scientology case, indeed.   Your point and Bishonen's would have been well-taken had it not been for the querying editor making clear that he wished Ross to be barred "broadly construed" from all articles, talk pages, noticeboards and userspace from addressing cults or Scientology "broadly construed" as he had asked before on 8 Nov 2015.  Prior comments, alas, make it clear what the intent here was.Collect (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand exactly, according to Wikipedia policy, what the purpose was in coming here to place my bio under DS due to Scientology concerns. If my bio was placed under such DS how would things change there exactly? If nothing would change then why bother with all of this? There are two editors currently at my bio who have recently suggested that I leave. WP: WikiBullying Many of my suggestions at the Talk page have been responded to with "name calling," "condescension" and "rudeness." Even when I specifically cite Wikipedia standards it's dismissed with the label it "does not conform to Wiki standards." It has been suggested that "all other editors not...edit [my bio] page." And the page was recently "proposed for deletion." WP: Civility There have been "ill considered accusations of impropriety" specifically directed at me, the abuse of templates, and IMO "baiting."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * FFS, I came here to ask about placing a simple notice to let people know the article is under DS and likely to be subject to the same kind of problems addressed, in general, in the Scientology case. This is how I exolained it to RR on his talk page . The Scientology decision defines the Scientology topic area generally as . The articles in the Scientology portal include all those people who can be categorized in [Cat:Critics of Scientology]. Does anyone here seriously dispute that Rick Alan Ross is a critic of Scientology? Really?? The issues with  burning out volunteers on his article is a separate issue from this RR has repeatedly expressed concern about people manipulating his biography, most recently in this conversation  with me at Steven Hassan. The purpose of getting the notice was to help build confidence that the his BLP was under increased scrutiny so he would not need to worry as much about people screwing with it so he might feel more comfortable about stepping back from the article and let others work out the issues he has already brought up.  If I feel he is becoming unreasonably disruptive on the article talk page I will make a case for a topic ban as I did before not try some imaginary back door ban as  is accusing me of because Rick Ross in not and never has been banned from Scientology topics. Based on the response to his topic ban thread at ANI, he would need to become considerable more disruptive before the community would sanction a topic ban. No matter my personal opinion it takes an admin, which I am not and even if I were I would be WP:INVOLVED or a community discussion to implement a topic ban which I have not called for here. As I have said many times in the past Collect has a serious problem with making statements which are not congruent with reality (@Collect if you want the diffs of some of those times I will provide them at your or anyone else's request) and this time he seems to have done it to distress the subject of a BLP. I suggest that if Collect continues to misrepresent the status of RR with respect to this matter and continue to falsely imply this will lead to some immediate of RR from his own article, as he as plainly stated above, that some admin consider applying a remedy based on NEWBLPBAN because he has slipped completely off the rails. A general DS notice has been placed on the article. It seems the answer to my question is that any editor can place a DS notice on an article since  just did - it also looks like the text and effect of the DS notice is the same regardless of what case resulted in authorizing it. If still thing a note that DS are stem from Scientology as well as NEWBLPBAN would be of use to new editors to let them know there is a cult actively interested in messing with the article. If anyone wants to argue whether RR is a critic of Scientology I suggest they take it up at WP:ARCA. Please someone close this before more drama ensues.  J bh  Talk  18:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Jbhunley. So your concern had nothing to do with me or my participation at the bio somehow being governed by a Scientology related DS. Your only concern was editors with ties to Scientology editing in the interests of Scientology?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the original poster's question has been answered, and RAR is now up to speed on what the request was about. This thread can surely be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

FPAS/TRM case request
If anyone has all the IPs listed, I'd like to make a map of sorts. This guy probably runs the RIPE NCC. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">QEDK ( T &#128214;  C ) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter (January 2016)

 * Original discussion

'''Enacted. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)'''

, who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.


 * Support
 * Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Drmies beat me! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. I had thought we could do this as a matter of routine - he had the tool, he set it down for a while, then asked for it back. Doug Weller  talk 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that there is overwhelming support from the community I've got no issues with reappointing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No concerns. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If this was a new appointment, I likely would oppose this over admitted activity concerns. (Floquenbeam's Con #1) That said, this isn't a new appointment, so as long as Floquenbeam is willing to meet the activity standards, let it be done.  Courcelles (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Returning the tools upon request is standard practice absent any concerns; community is clearly in support, as am I.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keilana (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure, and very well justified.  DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this today, this seems like a wise thing to do -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * I might make a decision when I return from a work trip -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  09:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

 * I proposed the motion but, I'm going to hold off voting until the notifications go out and community members have some time to comment in the section below (or by email if required). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Community comments
'The Arbitration Committee invites community members to comment on the proposed motion. If your comment involved private or sensitive information please email it to the Committee.'

I offered to do this in an email to ArbCom a little whle ago. Since they're soliciting comments from the community, I'll briefly share the pertinent comments I made in that email here:
 * Comment by the accused

Pros:
 * 1) I think I've got a pretty good record of my OS requests to the OS team being accepted; I don't recall any being denied. Admittedly there weren't a ton of them to start with.
 * 2) Unlike CU (which I will *never* request) I'm probably technically competent enough not to mess it up.
 * 3) An extra pair of eyes seldom hurts.

Cons:
 * 1) Big one: I'm not highly active, and don't expect to get more active, so if there are a certain maximum number of Oversighters you want on en.wiki, I shouldn't take someone else's spot. I'm more just volunteering to handle the occasional situation I happen to see on-wiki, or if I happen to time a visit to the queue/mailing list right and very occasionally get to something first. For example <redact a specific example I included in the email, where I edit conflicted with an oversighter, they OS'd at the same time I tried to revdel>.
 * 2) It's possible that it's been too long since I was an Arb for me to get it back ex officio (well, "ex" ex officio, in my case (ha!); Is "ex emeritus" a thing?) If that's the case, I'd be happy to wait until the next solicitation (in the summer, usually, I think?). Though I'd still like to know if Con #1 would be a deal breaker, then I won't bother.
 * 3) Recently, say in the past year, I don't think I've noticed a delay of more than about 5 minutes when I've asked for something to be oversighted; there may just be more than enough already.

This is mostly just me volunteering to help out in an area I think I'd be competent in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I unreservedly trust Floq with this permission. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Opabinia: Does that mean that Drmies is beating you, or that you want him to beat you? Either way, I think he should cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreserved support! Crow  Caw  00:15, 23 Januacry 2016 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely no reason not to trust Floq with oversight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Floquenbeam regaining the tools. Additionally, I wouldn't advocate fewer volunteer firefighters if response times were good so "con" #3 isn't something I put much weight into. Mkdw talk 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone please clarify whether Floq obtained the OS permission by annual (maybe) appointments and community discussion, or because he became an arbitrator?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because he became an arbitrator - . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather return him to the arbitration committee (and that rascally, too), but I guess this is a start. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He misspelled "accursed." Other than that it looks OK. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anyone I'd trust more to handle this task. 28bytes (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this appointment and trust FQ to handle the OS tasks without incident. Nakon  05:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Floq is trustworthy and I see no reason not to support. BethNaught (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all this "!voting" and comment stuff - just give him the tools he asks for; he's never abused or misused anything here on wiki, so if he's going to offer to do something - then just allow him to get on with it. — Ched : ?  09:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this section is designed for community comments/feedback in case there are concerns about the motion. In this case, the motion so far has a lot of community support and not a great deal of discussion. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no qualms about returning the OS bit to Floquenbeam, who is one of the admins I have a great amount of trust in. BMK (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 110% support, This doesn't even need any community feedback/!votes IMHO. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I have disagreed with Floquenbeam on more than a few occasions I have nothing but respect and trust for their judgement and discretion. <b style="color:Sienna">HighInBC</b> 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If ever there were a time to JFDI, this would be it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy support. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 19:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Floq having the OS tools will help with oversight, so I'm supportive of the idea. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Ya'll talk too much -- motion should say: " is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored."
 * 2) Reappointing him is good for the encyclopedia.
 * 3) Collecting community comments before reappointing him is good for the encyclopedia. NE Ent 21:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Easy support. Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we give it back to him? Floquenbeam has never abused or misused any positions of trust that he has been given. He was not a problematic oversighter, so I say we just give it back to him and forgo the gratuitous voting process. Kurtis (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. No objections whatsoever. Altamel (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Floq made an excellent oversighter. If he finds he's not using the tool enough, I'm sure he'll set it down. In other words, yes, obviously. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I see I'm not able to maintain the minimum activity level I'll turn it back in. But even I, sloth that I am, should be able to manage 2 uses per month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per what other people here have said.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Trustworthy and reliable editor. GABHello! 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. According to the use's statement that " I don't think I've noticed a delay of more than about 5 minutes when I've asked for something to be oversighted", this would seem to mean that (s)he has made several requests in the relevant time period. Add the fact that the user gav up the right completely voluntarily, the answer should be obvious. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

FPAS integrated motion
The enacted motion is here. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason two different statements by the same user on different cases active on the same page are not disambiguated?
Sorry for the super long title. I was just thinking about this. Wouldn't it be better if my statement here had the case name in parentheses after the words "Statement by Hijiri88", so that if I wanted to comment on another case the section links in my edit summaries and on the contents table at the start of the page would still work? It seems counter-intuitive to have each user comment in their own section but also give that section a uniform name based on the user's name and not the name of the case, but am I missing something? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist issue
The page Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (and any others like it) should be split, with a page for each case. That way interested parties can watchlist the relevant case without having watchlists swamped with irrelevant edits. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Page formatting Comment
The formatting of WP:A/R has got scrambled, somewhere around the end of the case request "Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227" and the start of ARCA. Normally I'd just sort it out myself, but think perhaps the clerks should deal with it here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be that the big red box is in the lede of WP:ARCA while it's below the first heading of eg WP:A/R. I'm still not game to change this off my own bat.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion
At the bottom of this page under "See also" is a link to "Wikipedia is not a moot court". This, however, is a simple redirect to WP:NOT, and there is not currently a section in that page by that name. I suggest we simply cut that entire section. I'd normally just do this myself - the page isn't protected, and this seems uncontroversial - but given that this is a really important policy page I didn't want to make any changes to it without discussing it first. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems uncontroversial, so I've gone ahead and removed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Like I said, I'd have done it myself, but I thought I'd better err on the side of caution on this particular page. --Gimubrc (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Shortcut for infoboxes case
Please add WP:ARBIBX as shortcut for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (it has to be enabled in the case page by creation of a special subpage under it; one can't just add slap it in the page). This case comes up frequently (basically because fighting about infoboxes has not abated at all despite that case), but the case has no "official" shortcut. This one exists (based on MOS:IBX / WP:IBX), but it doesn't appear at the case page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think the case comes up frequently, - actually I hope that the current ARCA can be the last mentioning, - where is fighting? - Where was fighting? - The case offered no solution. I archived it all when 2016 came, and I suggest we all simply forget it ASAP, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Serious infobox wars are pretty much confined to a small walled garden of regulars who all know all the arguments anyway, and most of the Arbcom drama is going away. I'd agree that it's best to just let it be.   Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment
The committee is about to make the same mistake previous committees have made, where it opens a case against a harassment victim. We need to do better at supporting people who are going through this, and better at recognizing how it changes people's behaviour. The last thing someone at the centre of this needs is for the committee to open a case against them to have that behaviour examined in public – and possibly examined by some of the same people who caused it in the first place.

This is a problem that law enforcement faces too. Danielle Citron has written about cyberharassment in today's Guardian, including about this very point: "We have seen prosecutors pursue individuals who, by all societal accounts, are either trying to help others or are victims themselves."

I don't know how best to move things forward, so I'll leave this here. I think it's something the Foundation finally needs to become fully involved in, because we don't seem to be able to fix things on our own. (For example, when a dispute becomes very damaging, it could move professional moderators in to relieve the volunteer admins. It could hire a harassment expert to advise the targets of harassment and the arbitration committee.)

Pinging some people,   SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another ping . SarahSV (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Name names. What "harassment" is a mitigating factor in the actions discussed in this case?  Also, if a person is compromised, it matters little why.  Wikipedia is not therapy.  Arkon (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to skip past 's jarringly compassionless post here., it's hard to answer this question as yet, because we are still discussing the scope of the case. However, it's not a case "against" anyone, it's a case "about" some disputed behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Sorry you find such things "compassionless". Arkon (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply. It's about the disputed behaviour of someone who has experienced a lot of harassment because of his adminning of Gamergate, and who has done a great deal to help women on Wikipedia. Those issues have attracted the attention of opponents, who will use this case as their latest platform. He is under a lot of stress because of it, which explains some of the (apparently unrelated) things that happened. Successive arbitration committees have made the same mistake, which is why this is so frustrating to watch.


 * What is needed is for Gamaliel to be asked to take a wikibreak and to stop adminning Gamergate. The committee could appoint a couple of uninvolved admins to take over. Then, as I said on the case page, if the community wants to start a discussion about the editorship of the Signpost, that's a separate issue. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This case has nothing to do with Gamergate, but you may be right that Gamaliel may need a break. If someone is under so much stress that it causes them to act improperly, they need to step back or step down. That has little to do with how Arbcom proceeds.- MrX 22:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's connected in part because the same names are cropping up, not only names involved in Gamergate but in other disputes involving gender issues. And in part because of the stress it has caused Gamaliel. When we see volunteers under stress because of their Wikipedia work, why do we respond by rushing forward to make things worse for them? We have a tendency to do exactly the wrong thing for people.


 * Can you imagine Oxfam holding a public "hearing" to invite anonymous people to submit evidence because one of its volunteers became overworked and stressed? We need a radical rethink about how we handle these cases. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you have names. Would you like to say these names that you are throwing under the "harassment" bus?  Or would you like to continue casting a wide net of aspersions without evidence?  Let me be clear.  I am tired of the "hey look over there" under the banner of whatever the distraction of the day is.  If you are going to accuse people of misdeeds, have the decency to do so directly. Arkon (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting stressed just from reading this page, personally. I feel very sorry for Gamaliel and echo everything Sarah has said. Izkala (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin: I know almost nothing about Gamergate and its related drama. Are you suggesting that these unnamed harassers caused Gamaliel to post the BLP offending material, remove a CSD tag, edit war, close an ANI discussion about his own conduct, and use admin tools inappropriately? Or are you saying that the unnamed harassers have undue influence with their RFAR statements? If the latter, would there still be just cause to examine Gamaliel's conduct if the harasser's statements didn't exist? (I assume that NE Ent, Fram, and Hammersoft are not Gamergate harassers). I'm a little surprised to see you take this stance since I thought you were one of the more vocal champions of our BLP policy.- MrX 00:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 'close an ANI discussion about his own conduct' He didn't close the discussion himself; he reverted to restore another admin's closure.  But I think you knew this.  Just as you know that if people are poorly treated that's gonna wear them down and can indirectly precipitate what we've seen has happened.  There's no point in asking puerile leading questions like if their behaviour's 'caused' his other actions. Izkala (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a close, is the same as closing. You seem to be saying that Gamaliel was treated poorly and that contributed to his unfortunate conduct. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, or what Gamergate has to do with a Donald Trump joke. - MrX 02:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the first speedy-delete tag of the "small hands" template was added by DHeyward, so the stage was set. DHeyward has been involved in Gamergate and has pursued Gamaliel; this was a Signpost page and Gamaliel is the Signpost's editor. I'm guessing it was like fingernails on a blackboard. I wish the committee and community would support good editors who find themselves in those situations, rather than piling on. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What complete bullshiat. I have no bits or privilege.  I've been victimized by Gamaliel sine my start here.  It's ridiculous to presume that I, a powerless editor, victimized the Sign post editor, admin, arbitrator, oversighter and tormenter for years.  He's the author of my only sanction, he endorsed two blocks that were overturned.  He's edit warraed, threatened and claimed "uninvolved" the entire time.  Read my GG sanction imposed by him (it was a restriction imposed on two editors from bringing AE actions against an editor that is now topic banned).  I didn't pursue the CSD tag, but it didn't stop him from violating policy.  Seriously, retract your nonsense as it sounds like your are blaming the powerless victim for abuse by the powerful.  It's a disgusting apologia that should be explored on  talk page.  Thanks for notifying me, BTW. --DHeyward (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, SarahSV, note the dates. I dropped it long before any of the ANI BS.  That's not me and your insinuation is beneath contempt.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're right that I should have notified you. I apologize. SarahSV (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you not compare Gamaliel to an alleged serial sexual abuser, please? This, and some of your other comments on him, are way out of line and will hopefully be dealt with swiftly by the . I sincerely hope the temporary injunction that was just proposed not only passes, but is made permanent. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My comparison was not to "compare Gamaliel to a serial sexual abuser" as I would make no such accusation that either or Gamaliel is a serial sexual abuser. (Did you just suggest that  is a serial sex abuser?  If so, you are seriously breaching BLP).  My only comparison was an apologia for the powerful being paraded as a defense of the weak is disingenuous.   Blame the accuser seems the order of the day.  If you wish to blame 's accusers or me, feel free to do so understanding what side of power you stand.  I have no power.  Please cintinue to victimize me in your role as admin, arbcom, oversighter and whatever other tool you wish to employ to silence me.  I've been raped before so the feeling is familiar. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed my wording to be clearer. I am not blaming Gamaliel's accuser; I am asking for the most basic amount of adherence to WP:NPA while this matter is resolved. I am sincerely sorry for what happened to you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in attacking him personally. He does excellent work outside anything to do with America Politics particularly transcribing out of copyright library works.  His contribution to WMF, library sciences and encyclopedic growth is without equal.  His partisanship on contemporary politics is not as admirable.  There is much evidence that he is not neutral in these areas. This is not new.  I am certainly not the one making the personal attacks.  I lived under his yoke.  Others are not oblivious to his actions.  I do not edit war with him or violate policy though I agree some wording could be improved.  My concern with an IBAN would be invocation of SuperMario "admin" vs regular interaction.  "UNINVOLVED" needs to be removed from his vocabulary. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's inject some facts into this discussion. SlimVirgin states that this has to do with Gamergate. Gamaliel alleged that 90% of the people involved are there because of Gamergate. Let's look at the facts. Of the people who have made a statement in this case or ANI, I note only the following people have edited the Gamergate page: DHeyward, me, Starke Hathaway, Mark Bernstein, Masem, Ryk72, Liz. Of these, Ryk72 and Starke Hathaway have urged acceptance and the rest have urged "decline". DHeyward hasn't made a statement either way. There is no pattern to "pro-GG" or "anti-GG" (whatever these terms may mean exactly) about the decline or acceptance. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK - I admit, it took me a few minutes and a bit of reading - but now I see. The bottom line is that it's often a fine line between "transparency" and respecting a person's "privacy".  In cases like this, as much as I may deride Arbcom, I think we need to trust them to review things and deal with them in the proper manner.  — Ched :  ?  23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also - if wanted, and as much as I think there have been errors, I HAVE been witness to Gam being treated very poorly. — Ched :  ?  23:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I intended to ping and  as Signpost editors/writers. Apologies for missing pings. SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. I am aware of what's going on and am watching closely. Rob has done incredible amounts of work particularly for the Signpost and I also know at the GamerGate stuff for an extended period of time, and without equivocation, I can say that Wikipedia is better for it. Someone who makes efforts as Herculean as he does is bound to have an occasional lapse in judgment, which I think is documented here, but I can't help but think we have a lot of self-righteous policy warriors passing judgment on someone who fights in the trenches and making mountains out of molehills in the process.  Go  Phightins  !  04:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the only appropriate remedy is for Gamaliel to be banned in a secret proceeding without the opportunity to defend himself. That is the clearly established precedent for handling these matters&mdash;I'm sure Gamaliel will agree&mdash;so it would seem inconsistent for the ArbCom to handle this case any differently. Everyking (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would respectfully suggest that, the question of whether harassment factors into this case, and moreover whether there is any misconduct that harassment may be called upon to excuse, are certainly disputed questions of policy and fact. It falls to ArbCom to make those determinations in the context of a case. I would, honestly, argue that if leniency is to be sought, this is definitely the wrong time to seek it. It hasn't even been held that misconduct occurred. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with SarahSV's post. The harassers appear to have won the day again, this time using ArbCom as their tool. Tony   (talk)  09:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Its ridiculous to even insinuate that DHeyward has harassed anyone, especially Gamaliel. DHeyward and I, now and even more so almost a decade ago, made great efforts, both on and offsite, to protect our editors here from harassment, including real life threats where we contacted law enforcement authorities including the FBI to help protect especially our female editors. To suggest that DHeyward has not been an advocate against harassment indicates a lack of education on the matter.--MONGO 13:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I also concur with SarahSV that the current case is closely linked to other issues and the personalities involved; notably Gamergate, but also some MRM issues in general. Gamaliel has been a helpful figure in working on the systemic bias problems that plague WIkipedia.  There was deliberate baiting going on, and I have often noticed that the worst bullies in any mob are the people who are using the greatest amount of hyperbole to claim that they are actually the victims.  I believe crocodile tears is the phrase that comes to mind.  In this case, though Gamaliel has to take responsibility to the extent his decisions and actions may be determined to have fallen afoul of policy, it is a miscarriage of due process not to consider the totality of the circumstances involved.   Montanabw (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the way the majority clique on ArbCom and their cheerleaders roll these days: scream harassment (without evidence), move to secret proceedings at which outside participation is restricted or eliminated, and enforce sanctions against their enemies. We've seen it twice this year already; now SV is advocating more or less the same thing in conjunction with "recused" arbs. It's sickening power politics, anti-democratic, star chamber bullshit, but clearly the way things are... Carrite (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, because we each see similar problematic results, but we feel the injustice goes in opposite directions (we each seem to think that some people are sanctioned far too harshly, others too lightly, but perhaps we can agree that it would be nice if a happy medium could be reached once in a while where the "punishment" fit the "crime."  I've felt for a long time that wikipedia needs a rule of law of sorts, this loose anarchy might be developing something of a common law as it goes, but the precedents are indecipherable.   Montanabw (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

recusal question
Just a clarification. Do the recusals from accepting the case mean by definition they are recused from the case, or just the decision to accept the case? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From the entire case. We are using an alternate mailing list for non-recused arbs to discuss the matter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * |OR - correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that recused Arbs only vow to "not vote" on findings and remedies related to the very specific terms on which the case was accepted. Meaning that: they may comment at any stage, offer evidence, and make suggestions in regards to the PD.  Also: If during the evidence phase, something unforeseen arises which is a tangent to the original case request - they may then vote on solutions for that particular item. — Ched :  ?  22:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Recusing from the entire case does not imply they won't participate, just that they won't participate as Arbitrators. For a similar discussion; see this. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 23:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, what Kharkiv07 said. While an arbitrator recused from a case can still be active as an arbitrator on other ArbCom matters outside of the case (including tangential issues) or active as a non-arbitrator participant in the case, it would be unusual and inappropriate for them to vote in a case from which they are recused, even if the issue they are voting on is not related to the reason they recused. If an arbitrator is generally confident about not needing to recuse, save for specific issues that may arise, they have the option of remaining active on the case but recusing from specific votes on findings/principles/remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, by the meaning of recuse as understood elsewhere, without exception, if Arbitrators (who are not a party to the matter) have recused themselves for cause (a conflict of interest or similar), they should not pass comment or involve themselves in the case in any way. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well they can always un-recuse themselves later... Not like *that* has happened before... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ryk72, that seems unnecessary to me. E.g., in the World War II case, Kirill recused because he wanted to present evidence.  That seemed perfectly legit and this is similar.   50.0.121.79 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)