Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * AGK
 * 1) Courcelles
 * 2) David Fuchs
 * 3) Elen of the Roads
 * 4) Hersfold
 * 5) Jclemens
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Newyorkbrad
 * 8) PhilKnight
 * 9) Roger Davies

Inactive:
 * 1) Risker
 * 2) SilkTork
 * 3) SirFozzie
 * 4) Xeno

Recused:
 * 1) Casliber

Comment by completely uninvolved Thryduulf
I have not been involved at all in this dispute, indeed I wasn't aware of it's existence until just now. However it doesn't surprise me in the least, nor does the appearance of certain names in the list of parties (most notably Tony1, noetica and Born2cycle) having encountered them in similar warring over article titles and similar MoS issues over the years - see for example WP:ARBDATE, hyphens/dashes and the history at Talk:Yogurt (the latter dispute given a good précis at WP:LAME).

If accepted this will be at least the third arbitration activity regarding applying the manual of style to the encyclopaedia at large, following Date de-linking (case) and Hyphens and dashes (motion), with a large crossover involved parties. Given this, I think that the committee should at the very least consider investigating the broader issue here of the interaction of consensus at MoS pages (often involving only a relatively small number of users) vs "local" consensus of editors at affected articles, especially when they weren't aware of the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Masem
This feels like a repeat of the Date Delinking case all over again, and represents a persistent problem at MOS that I observe but see no immediate means for correction, in that the named editors in addition to others form a small clique that, though their editing actions, seem to suggest that have full power and control over the MOS and reject any attempt to change MOS away from that. This is not to say that what they want the MOS to say, at times, doesn't have consensus nor that others don't agree with them; furthermore, some of these editors based on what we know are probably some of the best people to discuss the implementation of a MOS. However, it is the air of authority, and the lack of any ability to compromise on a different approach that makes trying to suggest changes or improves to the MOS an extremely bitter affair, if those changes are contrary to what this niche group believes is best. I will note that sometimes, these are started by editors with their own chip on their shoulders against the named editors here, and that certainly doesn't start the discussion in a positive light, but this case, here, I believe, is one where absolutely no type of personal vendetta was intended by the changes and yet these editors are power-playing their "position".

That said, its an extremely difficult situation to be remedied through WP's processes. As Sarek notes, because it involves numerous editors, no one single RFC/U can do this justice, and issuing a block at this time seems completely pointless. What would be best if there was a way for ArbCom to assess the situation, explain and detail why it is undesirable and harmful (if they find it as such), and issue warnings adn recommend future remedies should those editors excise this type of behavior again. --M ASEM (t) 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Fetchcomms
This has to be one of the lamest disputes ever. The MOS is not worth wasting hundreds of hours of users' time arguing over. I support consistency, but I support WP:DGAF more. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by involved Enric Naval
The behaviour of some of the participants has been more than wanting. In August 2011 a new female editor specialized in dogs scrambled her name and left wikipedia very shortly after Tony left her several insulting and condescending messages. Ironically, at that time the Foundation was discussing the low ratio of female editors. He also left a general message in the talk page. In his first edit he had blindly mass-changed the article, breaking interwiki links, and tagged three times for copyedit the entire prose of all the article because of the name lacking a hyphen, he didn't leave any explanation in the talk page beyond complaining about the hyphen removal.. The editor removing the tag complained in Tony1's talk page, and Tony1 reverted as "vomit" and "more vomit".

When I confronted Tony1 here, he didn't find any problem with his behaviour, and he said that he couldn't be blamed for the departure because the editor didn't make explicit reference to him when departing.

Dicklyon then tried a "compromise" by inserting the hyphen anyways, after Tony1 failing to subvert the result of this RM. This keeps happening all the time, this small group of editors supporting each other, and trying every excuse to cram their preferred version into articles and into MOS pages. This sort of behaviour burns out good editors, like User:Kotnisky (as commented in JCScaliger's statement).

In this other complain you have Tony1 telling an expert that he doesn't know how to spell names in his profession. Several editors disagree and say that the edit is mistaken, and against reliable sources. Tony1 refuses to change his mind, Dicklyon changes the rest of the article anyways. After this RM failed, Tony1, Dicklyon and Noetica (*) kept badgering in the talk page, trying to force the renaming anyways, rebuffing all arguments by expert editors that were familiar with the sources. Small examples of the usual problem: a small group of determined editors edit areas where they have no expertise, and rebuff the advice of experts and the usage in reliable sources. Expert editors give up in despair and stop trying to correct articles in their area of expertise. I suspect that this causes a slow and semi-invisible bleeding of expert editors.

(*) (Tony1 asked Noetica to participate, but he didn't have time) Tony1 later commented him that it was a disease and Noetica said that it was a "shleeping giant", which means clumsy and stupid person)

On the other "side" of the capitalization and proper name arguments, we have User:Born2cycle, who has caused GTBacchus to leave, see User_talk:GTBacchus. I'll leave others to comment on this one.

I'm sure that we can find many more editors who have either retired or completely given up on editing MOS pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved roux
Anything which gets the denizens of MOS to finally understand and accept that MOS is a guideline and thus not enforceable by any stretch of the imagination is a good thing. Anything which makes them finally shut up and stop their insane nitpicking is a good thing. If that takes an Arbcom case, so be it. → ROUX   ₪  20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
Some years ago, I noted "[a] tendency among some editors to treat policy guidelines as absolutes" and commented that "When guidelines are followed slavishly, with no allowance for deviation or experimentation, they are no longer guidelines, they are absolute rules. Since Wikipedia was made ex nihilo, if what was wanted was absolute rules, that's what would have been created – but, instead, we have guidelines, and the spirit of Wikipedia lies in treating them as such, as guidance and not as dogma. We need to allow them to breathe, to live and grow and, if necessary or desired, to evolve; but evolution cannot happen unless change is permitted, and change cannot happen if every time someone tries something very slightly different, their efforts are automatically snuffed out by those wielding the guidelines as if they were absolutes."With these remarks in mind, I concur with the comments by Fetchcomms and Roux above, and urge the committee to take on this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Johnuniq
I have occasionally attempted to work out what the dispute was about, but have always been driven away by the pointless walls of text. I am posting to thoroughly endorse the excellent comment by Greg L above, and implore Arbcom to follow Greg's proposed solution (despite how that would infringe the human rights of those involved!). Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment of distantly concerned 67.119.12.141
Copied from clerks' noticeboard by Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this TITLE dispute, but I tangled with some MOS zealots a while back who were using MOS guidelines about units of measurement for computer data (WP:COMPUNITS) as a POV-pushing tool in mainspace. I ended up dropping out and leaving incorrect information in articles on purpose, shrugging it off as another case of "someone is wrong on the internet". Everything said by Enric Naval, Roux, and BMK is true. I found myself wishing for an even more drastic solution than Roux's, like demoting MOS from "guideline" to "nonbinding suggestion" (though I'm not claiming that's really a good thing to wish for). It looks like the case will be accepted; I hope the scope is wide enough to address the issue named by Thryduulf, about the extent to which the MOS cabal can impose its preferences on the rest of the encyclopedia. Note there is an RFC/U about Greg L here. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from very slightly involved Mangoe
I happened to find out about this case through a user page watch on someone else, but examination of the issues leads me back to this issue popping up in the Christianity WikiProject in the form of a flat statement from one of the participants, followed by an RFC to put all Christianity article names in lowercase on the authority of the MOS by the same editor. I became slightly involved because, in the course of making preemptive moves, they also reduced a collective title to singular; I did manage to get that somewhat undone, but at the cost of a merge discussion which is still being consumed by the capitalization argument.

I've stayed out of the capitalization discussions, so don't count me as significantly involved. I would like to state, however, that having been hit by several of these mass change campaigns over the years, they are very disruptive and set off a lot of ill-will. It's too easy to WP:BOLDly make a mess which, if the change fail, takes a lot of tedious effort to clean up. The time has come to expect people to get some consensus first before going ahead.

Comment from uninvolved User:N-HH
Not involved in the specific topics under discussion, although I have been involved in debates at the wp:link talk page, mainly to contest the obsession some MOS editors seem to have developed with removing huge numbers of perfectly decent and relevant links from articles under the guise of "overlinking", often by automated process, with little apparent regard for context. As well as breaking other, more local, rules, often created to deal with politically sensitive real-world situations - and edit warring over it. I'm not interested in taking anyone to task over that, at least at ArbCom - and currently it's outside the scope of the case as framed - but it does feed into the wider problem.

The broader problem is that we have a needlessly complicated and bloated MOS, which is written and guarded by a pretty small group of people, who then use its provisions - as they choose to interpret them - to impose their preferences over the whole of Wikipedia. I mean, look at wp:dash. Why does a general-use encyclopedia, with thousands of amateur editors, and where it's actually quite difficult to include dashes in the editing function via most keyboards, have such incredibly complicated dash/hyphen rules? Most publications manage with just the basic distinction between a hyphen (for compounds, prefixes and date ranges) and en/em-dash (for "hyper-comma" separation in text). Has anyone seen the kind of absurdly lengthy argument having complex rules about when to use either a hyphen or an en-dash in compounds can cause? Not to mention all the "correction" work generated.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
I agree with what David Levy has said, in general, though I know nothing about this specific case. Please direct the clerks to remove the names of parties who are not under scrutiny. It can be very stressful to be a named party in a case. Discretion should be used. Jehochman Talk 04:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
MOS is a set of guidelines. Its "enforcement" is not a content dispute, and is within the proper sphere of the committee.

Moreover, the heated discussions about strengthening the MOS status are an ongoing problem. I would therefore suggest that a simple motion by the committee would be quite ameliorative.

''The Manual of Style consists of guidelines which are not mandatory for any editor to follow. The 'enforcement' of any such guideline is not conducive to a collegial editing atmosphere, and is thus deprecated by the Committee. Behaviour of editors which is non-collegial is a proper matter of discussion for this Committee, and for dispute resolution in general.''

Thus also obviating the laundry list of editors given for this case as well. Collect (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SMcCandlish
[I guess I'm supposed to put this at the bottom here under the closed comments section, but whatever. I'm no ArbCom procedures expert.]

I too protest being "hauled before ArbCom" as a party, as David Levy put it. , though I have no problem providing relevant information; consider me an expert witness. I have had no connection I'm aware of to the particular events raised in this case and am not certain I even know what all the articles are about. I gather that some of this has to do with editwarring about capitalization of things like "Virgin Birth" even when it's grammatically wrong to do so in many (not all) cases. While I've expressed an opinion on that before, and helped write the MOS section that says not to randomly capitalize doctrinal stuff simply because it's doctrinally important to someone, I have not been a party to any dispute about it and that section of the MOS has been stable for years. It was certainly never intended to prevent capitalization of "the Virgin Birth in Christian doctrine", but rather to prevent people capitalizing it everywhere, as in "lots of religions believe in Virgin Births", or capitalizing it when it's redundant to do so, as in "the Virgin Birth of Jesus". (If anyone doesn't understand why that's redundant, see User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 62, a thread about this started by someone in response to this ArbCom case.)

That said, I been deeply involved in other capitalization disputes at talk pages on the Manual of Style, article titles, and naming conventions in the past, and consider myself essentially a WikiExpert on the topic and its history at this point. I would like to address a pattern I discern of appeasement at our guidelines in response to outright browbeating by people who want to engage in capitalization practices reflected in extremely narrow specialist publications but rejected by all or nearly all reliable generalist sources. If the ArbCom broadens this case to include and directly address the concern I raise, then and only then would I consider myself a party.

My participation has mostly been about the embarrassing rampant capitalization of the common names of organisms that has been creeping through Wikipedia like a disease, reducing our appearance as a reliable, professionally edited source. Why it matters is that capitalizing the common names of animal species is jarring, childish and illiterate-looking: "Smith's Rock Pigeon was eaten by his Domestic Cat, who choked to death, so he got a Dog and a two Goldfish instead." This has greatly worsened in frequency over the last couple of years in Wikipedia articles. I have plenty to say about that, and how and why this has been happening, if it seems relevant here, but really the facts are abundantly clear from the massive but not yet complete collection of evidence I've gathered at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names in preparation for a major RfC or Centralized Discussion on the matter. I posted it but have since removed it as evidence in this case on the evidence page, because I think it is relevant only in a way (i.e., certain tendentious editors are pushing very weird capitalization preferences against the clear consensus of the community, and the problem is demonstrably worsening as these entrenched special interests dig in). The particular nit-picky details of what so-and-so wants to capitalize in this particular case is honestly of less importance and interest in my view that the general attack on MoS and increasing WikiProject suggestions that it should be ignored with impunity and that projects should go on editorial strikes and other WP:POINTy histrionics just because they're not getting their way. I also want to be explicit that I have no opinion about any behavioral allegations and ad hominen argumentation being made by the parties here, other than I feel I must address the suggestions of WP:OWNership of MOS and AT/NC pages as a load of nonsense.

, and to reduce conflict by providing consistent rules everyone can remember. Because offsite grammar authorities and style guides differ on various points, MOS cannot possibly make everyone happy about every single rule. But if they're consistent, we can agree to follow them (e.g., many don't think they really should have to stop at a stop sign or a red light if no other cars are present, but we generally agree to do so because that's society's consensus). The naming conventions are necessarily subordinate to MOS on style/grammar matters, regardless of policy vs. guideline labels. "It's just a guideline" is another long-standing argument to avoid, that even has its own page here. And MOS sub-guidelines are subordinate to the MOS, from which they have split over time; their purpose is to provide more detail and cover tricky cases, not contradict what WP:MOS says. Capitalization demanders have been ignoring both of these clear facts about how policy and guidelines work here, to advance personal agendas from soapboxes, instead of collaborate.

On what seems to have become an issue in this case before the ArbCom right now, MOS (and article title/naming conventions) regulars are resistant to change at MOS and AT/NC pages  They're almost always weird pet peeves, like trying to force everyone to read and write "Bald Eagle" because bird-watching field guides do so just to make the name stand out (or capitalize British rail job titles, or market analysis terms, or whatever the obsessed specialist can't get over). I have nothing against Noetica, Tony1, David Levy and other regular participants in MOS discussions, despite the fact that we can argue sometimes. They actually care about what it best for the encyclopedia. Not just their project or their favorite articles but the Wikipedia project as a whole, and don't usually push personal peeves. Like every page here, MOS attracts some regular editors and doesn't interest others. Addressing the that MOS/AT are WP:OWNed, an accusation generally only ever brought by people who try to make willy-nilly changes or force a personal preference against piles of evidence they're wrong or being pig-headed, isn't really an ArbCom matter. MOS needs more participants, it's true, but ones who care about what is best for the general readership, not their oh so magically special WikiProjects, and who are willing to do the sometimes difficult, time consuming and even expensive task of figuring out what should be done (e.g., I've invested over US$200 in style guides, dictionaries and other reference works in the last year alone, specifically for the volunteer work I do on the MOS). MOS doesn't need some pseudo-judicial wrangling. ArbCom is barking up the wrong tree. MOS/AT/NC isn't being owned by anyone; it's being protected from weird special interest alterations often being pushed by intractable WikiProjects and other small groups of editors who do not believe they have to play by the same rules as other editors. PS: I've founded several WikiProjects and am not against them; they simply aren't sovereign entities and need to learn that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please re-write this in a more readable format. At this stage, we are looking for evidence submissions and workshop proposals. Lengthy statements are probably not going to be read. AGK  [•] 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I cut more than half of it out. Good enough? I also removed nearly all the stuff about WP:BIRDS-and-the-MoS because it was thought to be tangential by some (on what basis, I'm not certain, since it's still rather unclear what the scope of this ArbCom case is). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Scope of this case
I would like to know what the scope is of this case from ArbCom - is it strictly over the recent Article Titles debate at MOS, or is it the MOS area in general? This has somewhat significant affects of who should be party to this and evidence to be presented. --M ASEM (t) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Recusal by Casliber
I just realised I am peripherally involved by way of being a wikiproject birds member and regualr participator in the perennial bird-name-capitalisation debate. Am happy to recuse on this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that a recusal on the BIRDS point only? As far as I can tell, that was never really part of the case, until SMcCandlish showed up above and added it.  It's a discussion that has been pretty orthogonal to what this case was opened for, involving mostly different people (though I am little bit involved, having expressed an opinion in a recent poll about that).  Or perhaps it's a bit related to the complaints from the technical market analysis guy, who wants another birds-like exception for his area.   More generally, I think we still don't know what this case is supposed to be about.  If the arbs provide guidance in terms of what they intend to examine, we could perhaps do better at finding some relevant evidence.  What's showing up so far is just everyone expressing their own pet peeves, it seems.  And as several of us have pointed out, if it's supposed to address the turmoil at TITLE, it's missing a number of key participants. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case: Article Titles
I would just like to make a point of order about the respect for deadlines in the above Arbcom case. I note that evidence from Born2cycle has only just been submitted. It seems to me that his submission is hours late, based on the deadline of 14:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC) when the case was officially opened plus 14 days. Whilst he may argue that he may have been busy preparing the evidence, most other parties and bystanders submitted theirs in good time, and where necessary have revised their evidence in plain view of all other parties. I feel that admission of his rather voluminous evidence, and the apparent right given to him to redact it into "digestible" form, may be prejudicial to others involved in this case given the lack of scrutiny of his arguments and the lack of time for other parties to respond (given the deadline has now decisively passed and the tendency of most others to be respectful of the law and of other editors). Also, as B2C has in the past always endeavoured to have the last word, I would submit that such late evidence is an attempt to gain the upper hand with a last-minute "ambush". -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * cross post from User talk:Hersfold (redacted)

I note that B2C's late evidence, which had been hatted as such, has been reopened upon his request. As I mentioned [above], I think this course of action is potentially prejudicial to others who have submitted their evidence in good time. I am aware that a number of the parties have not been active on WP since posting their evidence; one can assume that they may have been looking at the evidence up until the deadline, but not after. So I think that, in fairness, they should be alerted to the fact that late evidence has been allowed, and that they be given a right of reply to same should they wish it. I, myself, stopped my rebuttals of B2C's evidence because it had been disqualified. What should I do if I now wish to continue with my rebuttal? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * cross post from User talk:AGK (redacted)


 * It certainly is prejudicial. I'd like to hear from the arbs how they would like to proceed.  If they intend to take any of B2C's complaints seriously, then I should have a chance to respond to them, but it's not clear where or when that would be welcome -- or even how to ask them.  B2C has also said that he didn't think that the sockpuppetry by Pmanderson in CAPS and TITLE did any harm, while I thought it was a big part of the disruptive behaviours this case was about; I was waiting for a clue to clarify the scope of the case, but got none.  Still in the dark.  Should we focus on the TITLE policy change that B2C initiated, as B2C's evidence does?  Or on his hatting of objections to it as "non-substantive"?  What abut CAPS, is that gone now?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle has done more than tweak his word count, or "paring that I had to do per what the bot said" as he claims on AlexandrDmitri's and AGK's talk pages. At the end of his evidence statement, he has added a personal attack on me that was not in the original longer version. I'm not sure what his objection is — according to my reading of the rules, any editor is allowed to add evidence — but at this point, it's hard not to interpret this late addition as an attempt to intimidate. Neotarf (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle has given a reasonable excuse as to why his evidence was submitted late, so it will not be removed. However, if any other party has a rebuttal of Born2cycle's submissions, please forward it to a clerk for addition. AGK  [•] 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take you up on that. I have started to draft a rebuttal.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, thanks again for offering to allow my rebuttal. My draft ran to about 1500 words, and in thinking how to condense it I realized I was letting myself be annoyed by these proceedings, and doing more than rebutting.  I'm actually OK with how things are going now that Pmanderson is out of the picture and TITLE is unlocked and under discussion again; and B2C's evidence has nothing damaging enough to need to be countered, I think (his links tell the story more fairly than his commentary), so I think I'll just leave it alone.  If the arbs want any questions answered, of course, I'm happy to cooperate.  Thanks again.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to AlexandrDmitri for adding my answer to Born2cycle to the evidence page. Neotarf (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning of Neotarf removed from the notifications log
I've removed one of Sandstein's warnings from February 2013, that of Neotarf, from the log. Sandstein acknowledged recently that "in retrospect" the statement by Neotarf here, that he was warned for, "does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own"; he, Sandstein, was merely trying to "nip a possible escalation in the bud". He thinks Neo should get over it and "simply take the warning as it was intended, as an attempt to help you and others avoid unneeded trouble, rather than as a slight to your honor": i. e. take it as it was intended, rather than as it was actually phrased at the time ("If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions" bla bla). I suppose that's as close to an apology as could be expected from Sandstein. I've therefore removed Sandstein's warning to Neotarf from the log. Per some quagmire of bureaucracy or other, the warning hasn't been "vacated" or whatever, not by Sandstein and not by ArbCom, but I'm against leaving it as a mark of shame in the public log. I'd really like to remove the warnings logged simultaneously against Noetica (who left the project in consequence), SMcCandlish and probably Ohconfucius (I haven't studied Oh's case closely, though) at the same time, but I haven't done that. I'm treating Neotarf as a special case since Sandstein has in practice, and all but technically, withdrawn it in his comment which I quote above. Compare also this ongoing discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC).
 * I've reverted your action, as you appear to have misunderstood me. I've not withdrawn the warning, and am of the opinion that warnings cannot be undone. Per current practice, warnings are logged to help administrators determine whether discretionary sanctions may be imposed with respect to a particular editor. Because Neotarf was in fact warned, as provided for in WP:AC/DS, the log entry concerning them is accurate and should not be removed.  Sandstein   20:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the use of the notifications log. NE Ent 12:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I accept that an editor cannot be "unwarned", I do have a problem with the scurrilous allegations that were used to justify the those warnings. Sandstein has obstinately refused to accept any poor judgement on his part, and to this day sticks with that tired old line of defence. I've gotten over it, but that still doesn't mean I think Sandstein was right or that he can't retract those allegations or at least express some regret at the turn of events. I understand that Sandstein operates under presumptions of imminent malfeasance on the part of others, raising the temperature by injecting fear and loathing, which often works to pre-empt trouble. I honestly don't think that is asking too much, as I, Neotarf, SMcC and Noetica believe that the principles of justice have been violated. What really sucks is that Sandstein hasn't even acknowledged that two (maybe three) highly skilled and once dedicated editors have left in disgust because of what he did I would leave too, if I had a life – but in the absence, I have to live with this blotch on my record. I cringe. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone belatedly notified me directly via e-mail of this discussion. I certainly agree with Ohconfucius and Bishonen on this. Sandstein's bogus accusation/"warning" made against me and 3 others was in fact a direct, scurrilous attack, on false grounds, no matter how he tries to whitewash it a year later; he is being obstinate simply to win, to be seen to be right and righteous at all costs, and it is costing this project serious, long-term editors. I quit almost a year ago, not long after Noetica.  Neither of us are coming back until this gets resolved, other than I've popped in a few times to tie up loose ends.  I used to be in the top 400 most active editors, over 80,000 (non-automated) edits.  Think about that before you dismiss this as noise or old news or a waste of time.  It matters.  Borderline-slanderous false accusations of wrongdoing bearing administrative imprimatur are not nothing, not inconsequential.  It especially matters to those of us whose editing identities here are tied to our real names.  It IS a mark of shame in the public log, for something we didn't do.  See, the silly thing is that all of the editors Sandstein "warned" against "personalizing style debates" were trying to clue HIM in, and the rest of the noticeboard, that the editor under discussion, had already been found disruptive and abusive, against the same parties in the same debate, over at WP:ANI and previously in a user RFC, and was newly attempting a blatant ask-the-other parent move by re-raising his already rejected complaints on yet another noticeboard; the user was shortly blocked for this incessant disruption, and last I looked still was.  Sandstein's actions are directly comparable to those of a cop who arrived very late at the scene of a crime, with no partner or backup, leapt to incorrect assumptions all on his own, shot the victims instead of the criminal (who other cops properly recognized as the criminal and immediately arrested) without him even bothering to figure out what was really going on, even while the victims are trying to explain it to him, and now a year later he's still insisting he did the right thing and would do it again.  As long as you all permit this sort of "admins vs. little people" behavior to continue, with admins being backed up in their abuse of other editors simply because they're admins and we don't want to see admin authority challenged, then major contributors are going to continue to leave, and you know it.  Sandstein doesn't have to retract anything; all it takes is a simple consensus discussion, among enough admins who give a damn, that he erred, or even that the accusations (they're not warnings - read them, they're direct accusations of wrongdoing, with no evidence, i.e. personal attacks) simply have done more harm than good, without even getting to the issue of whether Sandstein really erred, and that either way they should be removed from the log.  Fix it, and I might consider becoming an editor again, without any kind of retraction or apology from Sandstein, though he'd be advised to abstain from any administrative involvement me again, or no one will believe he's not acting out of personal malice, as was clear when he un-recused himself after other admins pointed out he was too personally involved (has anyone ever UNrecused before, in all of history?) to be the one to personally issue me a short-term block when other admins were telling him they didn't find one justified AND that he was too involved.  And no one overturned him despite already telling him he was wrong before he did it.  Why are other admins so afraid of crossing Sandstein?  Look, I could have turned all of this into a drawn-out ArbCom case, and I had over 20 parties urging me to do so, many wanting to add their own complaints against him, but I simply walked away from the whole psychodrama wikipolitics.  I didn't become an editor here for that crap. I just wanted to make a better encyclopedia, and fixing this false accusation record would go a long way to restoring my faith that this project is worth donating further time to.  Noetica probably will not return even after his record is cleared of Sandstein's false accusation, but you never know.  I have no idea about Neotarf and whether that editor is participating any longer (last I looked, only on ArbCom reporting - effectively protesting Sandstein's mistreatment by abandoning article editing to do nothing but watch the watchmen).  I don't speak for anyone but me, and I haven't heard from any of these people in many months.  PS: No one has ever asked to be "unwarned"; that's an absurd notion and red herring.  The messages were unsupported accusations, not just "warnings", and it's their nature as accusations that anyone's ever cared about at all.  I've covered all of this in great detail on my own talk page in material that's still sitting right there, not even archived. Sandstein actually blatantly refused to read it, when I responded to him on my own talk page and on his, when this issue was still very fresh. He simply doesn't care that he shot the victims; doesn't want to hear from them.  They just need to shut up and leave him alone.  He's got more wikicrime to fight and is way too busy for their paltry whining. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  11:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't some police state where the cops are right even when they are wrong. Most people here believe in justice and being fairly treated. They don't like trumped up charges any more than they like bully-boy cops – cops who believe that it's their job to strike mortal fear into any mortal soul, bandit or mild-mannered alike, fearing the entire criminal justice system will come crashing down as soon as one cop admits he's made a human mistake. ARe you still insisting you are right, Sandstein; Do you see yourself as some kind of Robocop? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at great length previously, and I have nothing to add to what I have said before in this matter. Any user who believes that an admin action related to arbitration enforcement is wrong can appeal that action to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. But the Committee has already declined an appeal against a warning by another editor (in the same context, I believe) on the grounds that warnings are not subject to appeal. I advise all of you to drop this fruitless endeavor (see WP:STICK) and to return to productive editing.  Sandstein   15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quelle surprise! I would be a fool if I dreamt for one minute you would cop a guilty plea. Even if we drop it, doesn't mean you're right; it just means we're powerless against school-yard bullies. You are the embodiment of everything I despise about people in authority. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Without defending anything done wrt. this AE case over a year ago, I want to note that it is clear (now) at this page, and has been made clear elsewhere, that this kind of notice is merely a notification of discretionary sanctions. It is not a warning in the sense that "I'm warning you you'd better not do that again!", which would imply wrongdoing in the past, it is only a warning in the sense of "everyone is warned to be extra nice on these topic areas".  It's a notice.  There is no finding of guilt.  Any implied finding of guilt has been repudiated, it seems to me. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're still either not paying attention or intentionally helping Sandstein to misdirect about the matter: It was NOT simply a warning. READ THE TEXT OF IT.  It was a direct, blatant accusation of malfeasance, and a warning to stop engaging in continued bad action, without any evidence of there being any bad action to begin with.  This by definition constitutes a personal attack per WP:NPA.  This is not and never has been about whether it is or isn't okay for Sandstein or any other admin to have warned someone, about whether someone can be "unwarned", about whether warnings can be retracted, so none of this noise about the ArbCom deciding warnings can't be undone is even faintly relevant at all.  The only thing it has EVER been about, as I and everyone else victimized by Sandstein [except Noetica, who just quit in disgust] has said at least 20 times in as many places, is that Sandstein's so-called "warning"  constituted a personal attack, a slander, and he is unwilling to simply concede this obvious fact and retract the false accusation clearly inherent in the warnings/attacks he delivered to us.  :  For all I care, the original log entries can be voided as we're requesting, then, if he insists on being punitive and judgmental Sandstein (or any other admin) can *re-issue new warnings* with the currently approved wording, that have precisely the same intended *legitimate* effect as the originals - to put all four so-warned editors on ARBATC discretionary sanctions notice, and on the log as so-warned - but  that old wording accusing us wrongly of already engaging and "continuing" to engage in behaviors that violate policy.   .  How can it possibly take half a dozen people telling you all this for a year and you still don't get it?  Gaaawd.  A child would have figured this out a week after it happened and just fixed it, instead of digging in their heels and defending administrator righteousness at all costs.  WP:STICK applies against Sandstein here.  You cannot, with a straight face and a sound mind, tell people falsely accused of wrongdoing in public to just STFU and walk away. The one who needs to do that is the false accuser, especially when none of us even care if ever actually admits any wrongdoing.  We simply want the false accusation voided from the log, not  because Sandstein is baaad, but because it's a false accusation and deleting it is the .  It's called ethics.  For WP to continue to steadfastly refuse to right this wrong simply to preserve an illusion of administrative infallibility and solidarity borders on collective sociopathy. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, SMcC, I'm still keeping an eye out, although I am no longer interested in editing. I did file an RFAR, which was declined, although Sandstein did state that "in retrospect your statement does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own".  I have pretty much cleaned up any unfinished business on the articles I was working on, and have deleted my archives, with a little help from OhC.  The only thing I have left is the current  discretionary sanctions proposal, which so far would not affect our situation, as none of it would be retroactive.  It would also have the unfortunate effect of pinning sanctions/notifications/restrictions on broad categories of editors whose conduct has never been called into question.  In the meantime, WP loses a thousand editors a year, and the admin corps is dwindling as well.  —Neotarf (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the false accuser is the one with the massive gun. Furthermore, the ability to scrub such things doesn't seem to be in Robocop's algorithm. Somebody needs to put it there. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid the template is not "just a notification". It is a speed-banning notice.  It means you are now on strike 2 and the next admin action will be sudden death. No one has to prove you have ever done anything improper, no one has to prove you have even edited the page under sanctions.  Maybe you only voted in their RFC/U.  This is a POV-pusher's dream template, all they have to do is put it on an editor's talk page, then find one clueless admin. —Neotarf (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This topic under discussion at —Neotarf (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (March 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=600646249#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation Original discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  NE Ent at 01:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator) (I am aware of this request.)
 * notified
 * notified
 * (notified via e-mail by SMcCandlish, since Noetica probably doesn't get e-mail notices of talkpage messages)
 * notified (in e-mail also; uncertain if receiving talkpage notices]
 * notified

Statement by NE Ent
Back in December Arbcom '13 declined an appeal of a warning issued under the existing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=585479964#Discretionary_sanctions discretionary sanctions], and my read on the situation is that the committee really doesn't anyone wasting time arguing about whether an editor being notified was actually guilty of misconduct (a reasonable position). In a recent [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=600246827#Reverse_Sandstein.27s_false_accusations_and_destructive_warnings ANI thread] SMcCandlish indicated that an arbcom page linking to an accusation that he felt unable to defend himself against was interfering with his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. Sandstein stated during the December filing "I recommend that the appeal is declined because warnings or notifications are, in my view, not in any meaningful sense subject to appeal or revocation. Their purpose is not to restrict their recipient in any way, but to inform them about future possible sanctions, as required per WP:AC/DS#Warnings." Therefore, to satisfy both SMcCandlish's desire to be free of the badge o' shame and Sandstein's point there be a record of notification, I renotified the four editors with the most neutral statement I could come up with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=prev&oldid=599749694] and substituted those notification in the log [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation&diff=prev&oldid=599750394].

Sandstein however objected to this awesome solution on the AC clerk's board [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FClerks&diff=599844812&oldid=599784761], so it appears that is not the notification which is important but his notification with its finding of fault. So I'm asking the committee to simply decide whether the finding of fault must remain on the case page, or whether a simple drama free neutral notification would do.

Note: if you review the case there's a minor conflict between myself and because I screwed up and totally forgot a prior discussion we had had, which is why I put his prior notification back here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FArticle_titles_and_capitalisation&diff=599847887&oldid=599826396]

Statement by Johuniq
Please re-think this issue because the claim that "it's just a warning" are totally incorrect. A simple solution is available—issue a motion that the original warnings are vacated and are replaced with something new—something which does not declare that the recipients are guilty of a wikicrime. A simple "reminder of the importance of civility" in the motion would be sufficient.

There were exhausting discussions regarding titles, and one editor argued and argued and argued in multiple locations regarding the outcome of the discussions. That editor was not alone in believing that the original decision was flawed and so was encouraged to continue beyond human endurance. Despite the opposition, there was a clear consensus for the previous decision (and a larger consensus that the outcome should not be further challenged because any decision was better than indefinite arguing). The dispute was extremely problematic, but it continued on an on because it was "civil".

As part of the battle, an AE request was brought against an editor: Apteva, 22 January 2013.

A counter-claim followed: Noetica, 27 January 2013.

It was decided that the second claim should be closed with standard warnings issued to four editors: diff + diff + diff + diff. An extremely problematic log of the issue was then made here. The last puts the four editors who were defending the consensus decision in the same public stocks as an [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AApteva indeffed user].

The "warning" is unduly pompous and includes the following text:
 * against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia
 * If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic ... blocks ...

The warning strongly implies that each of the four editors had failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, and asserts as fact that each had misconducted themselves. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the saga. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
In December 2013, the Committee declined an appeal against these warnings, which I made in February 2013 per current procedure (WP:AC/DS) using the then-current version of the standard warnings template. Yesterday, an arbitration clerk,, restored as a clerk action the version of the case page that contains these warnings in the form I logged them, after they had been variously changed or removed by and , as can be seen in the page history. Likewise, a few days ago, an uninvolved administrator closed a, shall we say, slightly overblown ANI thread containing complaints against the same warnings with a finding that they violated no policies. This matter has therefore been discussed (to death) in all possible fora, including earlier ANI threads and ARCA requests, and has been conclusively addressed by the competent functionaries. Continuing to make complaints about these warnings is, in my view, therefore pointless and bordering on disruptive. In my view, the log entries in the current version correctly reflect the warnings as they were made at the time they were issued. Should the Committee now prefer that the log entries be changed in some way, they are of course free to instruct the clerks to make whatever changes they consider appropriate. In addition, it is not clear to me what business of NE Ent's (who is neither an administrator nor an arbitration clerk) it is to make any alterations to arbitration logs created by administrators. The same goes, of course, for Neotarf, who has also been editing the case page to remove logs of the warnings at issue. I recommend that the Committee restricts NE Ent and Neotarf from changing arbitration case pages, or that it adopts a general rule of procedure that restricts all but clerks and uninvolved administrators from creating or changing log entries.  Sandstein  11:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly oppose NE Ent's approach, in the abstract. That's why, in view of the repeated changes to the log page, I only asked the clerks to determine how the log entries should read, which they did. I think this places the responsibility for the format of the entries on the Committee and its clerks, rather than on me. What I do object to is the unruly and confrontative manner in which these warnings are contested by some of their recipients, that is, by dragging the issue from forum to forum for more than a year, in a strident and accusatory manner, with unilateral changes to log entries by involved parties and random passersby, generous doses of bad faith and allegations of misconduct on my part, and never taking no for an answer. I am disinclined to take complaints made in this manner seriously, and I think the Committee should be similarly reluctant to – if you don't want to set the precedent that even if the Committee declines an appeal, all one has to do is to make enough noise until they get their way. In general, I think it's up to the Committee to determine whether and how warnings, notifications and the like should be logged. To date, the Committee has not made any rule about this, but the generally observed practice is to log such actions in a format like "User:Foo warned/notified per AE thread, signature." If the Committee prefers a different format, I think that it should say so and require the use of this format for all log entries, rather than only in this one case. That's also because I consider, as I have said in the many previous proceedings, that particularly in SMcCandlish's case the warning was merited on account of his conduct. I issued it because of his overly aggressive and personalizing comment to the AE thread, in a manner specifically forbidden per WP:ARBATC, such as: "His (and [name]'s WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense". The other commenting administrators agreed that a warning was appropriate. For these reasons, any accusation of misconduct that SMcCandlish believes to be implied by the warning and log entry at issue is, in his case at least, merited. That said, Salvio giuliano, if you think that my work at WP:AE does more harm than good, I'm happy to quit it if you would like me to. I'm not interested in helping out where I'm not welcome to, and I really have no time for all of this.  Sandstein   16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius
I certainly don't enjoy wasting my time here, whether writing or reading War and Peace, and I don't want to be accused of being disruptive. But I'm fed up with Sandstein's stonewalling and hiding behind the technicality that once a person cannot be "unwarned" once they have been warned, so I'll just thank Johuniq for summing it up so very nicely. Please Arbcom, don't conflate the warning with the unfair accusatory part that I would like to see withdrawn. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to thank NE Ent for not cowering to the Mighty Sandstein and for once again bringing the matter here. Yes, I would support expunging the diffs from the "notifications" as suggested, being undoubtedly the simplest and cleanest way about it. The ever elusive apology or retraction would be nice but I'm not holding my breath – I think would be like getting blood from a stone anyway. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
My preliminary reaction to this, it's not gamed and distorted yet again, is:. I am the very one who proposed this solution to begin with (and kudos to NT Ent for getting this ball rolling). The recent ANI request about this generated simultaneous suggestions to take the ethical dispute with Wikipedia to the level of an RFARB case, and the behavioral issues with Sandstein to an RFC/U.

Yet, if Sandstein's falsely accusatory old ARBATC threats/warnings are removed entirely or at worst replaced with neutrally-worded ARBATC, like what NE Ent used, the #1 issue all four affected editors have raised is just instantly , painlessly. Regardless of Sandstein's intent, his warning/accusation/threat text being interpreted (not just by the accused) as accusations without proof, i.e. personal attacks, in direct contravention of the very ARBATC discretionary sanction conditions ostensibly being warned about! The clearly reasonable, ethical thing to do is to remove problematic wording like this, no matter why it was put there or by whom.

This fix would not necessarily resolve every issue each of these editors may have with Sandstein (and they differ), but it resolves the very serious problem for ArbCom and for WP more broadly of WP:ARBATC's notification log being misused (inadvertently or not) for blatant character assassination instead of for ARBCOM's case-administration needs. It's wrong to allow a formal WP dispute resolution procedural page like that to be used as an admin dirtlist of accusations of "continue[d]" "misconduct" with no proof (and only against certain specially targeted editors – Sandstein himself doesn't log all editors he formally gives ARBATC warnings to, like these two, and clearly hardly anyone else ever bothers logging anyone there at all. It has set a very bad precedent and cost the project a ton and a half of good-faith, productive editorial contributions. For nothing helpful in any way. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: Part of why I've remained silent for so long was an expectation that surely ArbCom would just see the light and fix this, quickly. Hasn't happened. "I'll try this week to write some motions to resolve these issues. AGK [•] 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)" (at ARCA over a year ago). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Revised 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I think you're forgetting that at least for those of us who edit under our real names here, false accusations that appear to anyone but WP policy experts to be official condemnations by Wikipedia for wrongdoing have more than on-wiki potential consequences. For the others, I'm not sure you get to decide what their honor is worth. How would you feel if I ran an online newspaper and one of my journalists wrote a convincing-sounding but made-up article labeling you (even just under your WP username) a sadist who likes to kill kittens [or whatever], and I refused under some convoluted procedural rationale to remove the baseless accusation, and left it up for an entire year? And people told you were overreacting if you objected? :-) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies: While what seems to be a proposal to only remove "continue to" could, maybe, sorta fix the wording issue, The proposal to remove "continue to" would fix the wording issue. I think it's clear that it won't really fix the broader make-an-example-of-these-punks attitude issue, which still comes off as attacking.  But that's a severable matter.  It  Failing to address that aspect would not be a resolution in spirit.  Aside from fixing the text as you suggest, The real, equitable solution is to just replace the warning/threatening character of the entire log entries with something totally neutral, as NE Ent used , or remove them entirely.  I am fairly certain that a failure to treat us with neutrality will lead to one or another of the parties going the RFARB and RFC/U route, because Sandstein being in the wrong in multiple ways on his initial action is actually very easy to demonstrate. I've already done so, several times, in different places.  Sandstein was not in a position to issue a "warning" (which automatically implies a finding of wrongdoing) because did not have the facts to determine any wrongdoing. He did not read the prior AN or RFC/U that led up to the AE request.  I and others repeatedly pointed him to this evidence of the now-indef'ed user's previous and quite recent cases, and he refused to look at it or consider it, every time. He's bringing a Swiss court procedural rule about evidence admissibility from his lawyer day job, to an informal administrative role on a volunteer website. It's an un-wiki bureaucratic proceduralism that is worse than unhelpful here. Issuing his warning/threat without evidence of wrongdoing –  the evidence – is still palpably a false accusation by Sandstein, just one less flagrantly worded.  Retaining it here, after all these attempts at resolution, would be kind of like sanctioning civil PoV-pushing simply because it's polite and because you like the guy who's doing it. Also, he applied ARBATC logic about arguing over style/title matters, to a dispute at AE over editor behavior, despite the fact that the ArbCom has said many times that such restrictions, even direct interact bans, cannot be used to deny editors legitimate use of our dispute resolution processes.  All discussions at AE (and AN, ANI, etc.) are pre-"personalized" because they're about editing behavior, not content! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth: Neotarf was active just yesterday and probably would want to comment here, and has been notified. Don't know what time zone they're in. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio: I support NE Ent's solution (and originated it, as a possible last-ditch compromise), and have issues (noted just above) with the Roger Davies version, however well-intentioned. Your alternative, "we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert)" is even more wholeheartedly supported by me, and I know for a fact from all previous discussions that it's the version all four of us have always asked for (meanwhile, only I have endorsed the NE Ent solution so far.) Given that you're suggesting our original request is actually feasible, to have this controversial accusatory material voided from the log entirely, and given that Sandstein has done everything he can to obstruct resolution of this problem for a year, .  That will completely resolve this issue, without any further question, in the most equitable way. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The points you raise are mostly irrelevant to the question raised in this ARCA, so I'm hatting this response. The Arbs themselves have been seriously divided on appeal procedures for such AE measures as your accusatory log entry, including ARBCOM, AE and AN/ANI as suggested venues. Your insinuation of tendentiousness is without merit here; you have no reasonable basis for opposing our use of the suggested venues, nor being angry with us that each venue keeps passing the buck, due to the unclear guidance. And I've been largely just absent and content to be "retired".  have mostly been reopening this dispute, and I end up getting notified about it by someone digging me up on Facebook or whatever. I agreed to try again this time because I see some hope, which I had totally lost, of this actually finally be resolved.  Here, however, you now seem to be complaining at me over Neotarf frequently bringing the dispute back up, but Neotarf isn't an active party (yet?) at this ARCA request, which neither of us opened, but which was opened because of your own totally unnecessary Clerks Noticeboard request along related lines.  That seems to be casting imprecise, off-topic, projective aspersions to be combative, which is pretty much exactly what your "warnings"/accusations against us were ostensibly for to begin with. As you've been repeatedly informed, the parties whose names we're eliding were in fact already found at WP:AN to be tag-teaming, and tendentious, and pursuing anti-consensus, frivolous and obsessive WP:LAME disputes (i.e. nonsense), which is exactly what I said, and what you said I said.  To this day you still pretend that the AN and RFC/U against the editor who filed the AE in question isn't relevant or isn't there; to the contrary, it collectively  the very evidence your accusations claimed did not exist for what the four of us were warning AE about with regard to that editor's WP:PARENT-shopping request there!  You admitted to not having read that or any other relevant AN case: "I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter." (smoking gun proof your warning/accusation was missing the facts and ignored the evidence).  Third, a number of editors, admins among them, have questioned your faith in this matter, not because of failure to  good faith but due to the WP:DUCK/WP:SPADE effect eventually wearing those assumptions down, because of your insistence on your own infallibility here, relying on your tenure and standing as an admin to evade corrective action, including for AGF issues of your own. The one and only reason this has dragged out, that this project has lost so much productivity over your false accusations, and probably permanently lost a very good contributor, is that you just will not stop fighting every attempt to resolve this, even when I and others go out of our way to suggest a remedy that can be made without it even being a direct critical reflection on you.  I bet that Salvio taking you up on your offer would lead to happier days for everyone, including you.  I actually see that you perform work that few others want, and that AE would have a backlog if you quit.  But I think you need to seriously rethink your approach and the effect it can have on people who are not vandals or nuts, just differently motivated than you are.


 * — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)  Revised: 14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @AGK: I hope this gets resolved before you make up your mind on this ARCA request, if you participate in it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  23:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth: Sandstein's accusations, added to the ARBATC log instead of neutral logging of a notice, were about specific misinterpreted edits made at one place and time. This ARCA is about resolving that; it is not a fishing expedition to see if someone can dig up something elsewhere that Sandstein's accusation might arguably be valid about if retroactively misapplied to it. I understand your concerns about my post in Oct., the tone of which I regret in some places. When I wrote it I was not expecting to return at all, was responding to being personally attacked in grave-dancing ways that triggered someone else to track me down off-WP and notify me about it, and the entire point of the post was to get people in that debate to stop enganging in the very things ARBATC is supposed to be curtailing.   My post is also over five months old now, and no one filed a complaint about it then. If someone wants to use old evidence to launch an RFARB about my Oct. post to punish me again for a non-extant dispute, fine (I say "again" because Sandstein and another admin were planning a block/ban against me for a supposed editwar that .)  I was, back in March of 2013, boomerang-banned at AE (by Sandstein, no surprise, in a case raising serious WP:INVOLVED and other issues, like misapplication of DS to censure participation and meta-discussion in dispute resolution) for filing a request there based on old evidence and on my claims that a pattern was evident and would continue, as you do with regard to me here. (The user I made the request about and I have recently come to a better understanding, BTW.)  It's inappropriate to reverse the principle here just to be punitive toward me, to make sure that my effort to vacate Sandstein's accusation is replaced with a new one, on the basis that I "might" engage in proscribed editing some time in the future. Note that the inappropriateness of "quintessentially punitive" Arb actions is not taken lightly by ArbCom. It's also unfair to make threats of out-of-band punishment for old posts in a narrowly-focused ARCA nearing resolution, where brevity and focus has been specifically requested, as it prejudices the proceedings against me, either by necessitating that I post more in renewed defense than Arbs want to read, or leave accusations undefended and presumptively conceded.  I've removed several other issues I raised with your using recent good faith efforts of mine as places to try to dig for something incriminating, to shorten this response. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  08:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @All: There's a surplus of ARBATC enforcement aimed at me, but it's rarely used against anyone in fractious style/title debates, no matter how those rage or for how long. Look how short the logs at ARBATC are, and how much they focus in uncharacteristic detail on punishing me in particular (despite my clean block log), as Georgewilliamherbert notes below – not content debate on style/title matters, ARBATC's actual purview.  Something is not right here.  This enforcement is very selective, punitive and personal (i.e. vindictive and "personalizing of style disputes" - ARBATC's enforcement tends to violate what it's supposed to be enforcing).  This ARCA should not take any further steps in that direction, especially since it was filed by someone else to resolve a simple matter, not further complicate it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * : I appreciate that you're aiming to eliminate the problematic log entries, very much. I also understand your concerns about my Oct. ranting.  I cannot apologize "to" a wikiproject, which is just a page editors use to collaborate, not an entity unto itself with its own hive-mind feeling (and in that one, the regular participants don't have unanimity on the issue that was being argued about).  I've already cited WP:DICK against myself here in the course of apologizing for that outburst, which was not typical of my output, and won't be repeated (it was a "leave me alone and quit fighting about this crap" message by a former editor, not a normal post).  Not sure what else I can do.  I'll apologize for my tone in user talk to anyone in that debate who wants me to.  I hope that is sufficient.  But my post there generated no actual controversy/dispute, ill-conceived and reactionary as it was. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * : Having read the current DS review material in detail, I've re-thought this, and unreservedly support your solution here, to delete the "continued to" text. It's not a total solution to every issue raised here, but they're severable, and what you mean to do is clearly a necessary part of the set of solutions to the problems.  I also continue to support the idea that the DS logs on case pages should be un-diffed, and that these particular log entries be deleted as unsupported accusations.  Your and Salvio's and Carcharoth's proposals are compatible, and together form the best solution. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  14:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for dealing with this! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  20:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Noetica
[I speak independently, and it would be utterly unfair to visit consequences upon anyone else for the detailing or the tone in what follows.]

As noted on this page, I have retired from editing Wikipedia. I thank SMcCandlish for informing me by email of the present action.

For myself, I am indifferent to the outcome here, having from the start of this sordid and desperately mismanaged affair noted Sandstein's intransigence and systematic failures of insight. I understood immediately, and said explicitly enough, that the best response when he is involved is to withdraw to another environment where reason, balance, and natural justice prevail. That was easy for me, and I have left Wikipedia well behind. If vindication were needed for this stance, the evidence is right here on this page, or linked from it (astonishingly insensitive statements so far by Sandstein, Roger Davies, AGK, and Carcharoth).

No, I am here for the editors who innocently spoke up when I was taken to WP:AE by a vindictive and now indeffed editor (Apteva) who caused immense wastes of time for dozens of Wikipedians – aided by deeply involved ex-admin SarekOfVulcan. The editors and admins who spoke up for me were ignored. Three editors were sanctioned when they spoke up for me (I had overtly withdrawn from my own defence, so manifestly and hopelessly biased was the WP:AE process, as were involved admins who commented in the guise of uninvolved admins, turning the decision against me). I feel a responsibility to speak plainly about the matter now, when it may help editors who suffered at Sandstein's hands.

I wholeheartedly support the idea of "an un-diffed log", so that Sandstein's mistake is removed as an embarrassment to the Project and a continuing slander on hard-working Wikipedians – or indeed, on those ex-Wikipedians whom Sandstein has casually swept from the Project in the interest of simplistic obedience to simplistic rules (his own, essentially) and a superficial appearance of good order. I may one day consider returning to offer my expertise: if Sandstein is removed as an admin, or shows recognition of his errors and apologises without reservation for his mistakes and relinquishes any connection with WP:AE work. (Other well-known admins could be named as culpable in connection with my brief brush with Sandstein's Star Chamber; but we all know how futile that would be, also. In this present forum. ☺ )

Noetica (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to Carcharoth:
 * You write: "As far as I can see, the only one of the four editors whose conduct definitely warrants a note on the record is SMcCandlish." And I answer that you do not see far enough. Sandstein's unjust and out-of-process warnings that are the topic of the present action were imposed months before "that October 2013 edit". It is ludicrously unjust to continue here the hounding of SMcCandlish (initiated by Sandstein) that was then already well in train – and that provoked some poor behaviour for which he seems already to have apologised. Who else, by the way, has apologised for anything at all? Where, by the way, is your interest in warning or sanctioning Sandstein (whose actions you endorse reversing)? It is such egregious failures to separate issues and deal rationally and fairly with each of them that threaten the reputation of this forum. In light of such of a lapse of process, and of judgement on your part, I am moved to ask that you recuse from consideration of this action forthwith. For the record, I hereby request that my own original notification remain, if anything like what you propose for SMcCandlish is left on his record. Noetica (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf
Why was a topic-banned user even permitted to file an AE case, much less against the very editor who drafted the “motion to close” of their topic ban RFCU? Contrast with this clarification request, where a user with an interaction ban was immediately blocked. Looking at both the case against Apteva and the case against Noetica, I see no evidence that the closing AE admin took this topic ban into consideration, or was even aware of it. The case against Noetica should have been closed as obvious retribution.

@Sanstein: Please be accurate. I did not "change or remove any warnings in the form you logged them", I removed changes made by NE Ent, who is not an admin, and who changed them out of process, as I noted both in the edit summary and on the talk page. And the conclusion of the ANI thread was not that "the warnings violated no policies", it was "I haven't seen any evidence that Sandstein has actually violated any Wikipedia policies." They didn't see any evidence about you, because whether you have violated any policies or not, I have not accused you, which is more consideration than you have given me.

@Roger Davies: If the current discretionary sanctions review is going to provide some thing that will "help deal with the current situation" why hasn't it been presented yet? It has been three months since that was promised at my RFAR, and six months since the beginning of the review. The last DS review, completed in in 2011, took two years. The current proposal says none of the new policies will be retroactive.

This argument is being used in a circular manner, refusing to resolve my situation because of the ongoing review, and being callously dismissive of any of my statements at the review because my current situation has not been resolved. This makes for neither good policy nor good encyclopedia building. And it makes it look like the policy review is being conducted in order to cover up Sandstein's controversial actions. Better to lose some of us to the project, than to make a policy that does not address the needs of the project as a whole. Chances are some of us may not edit again no matter what you do.

@Carcharoth: "...what is most damaging the reputation of some of the users notified is their (by now) over-reaction to the notification, which will be remembered long after the original dispute has been forgotten.

The accusations, from over a year ago, are being made over and over again. And it's not true. But there is nothing, nothing, nothing I can point to when someone throws this in my face, to prove that it is not true.

@arbs: What would be the rationale for leaving our names on the case record? Does anyone really believe we are not aware of WP:ARBATC and need to be "notified" that it exists? All four of us participated in the case (it was my 30th edit ever, as a new user). There was plenty of chance to present diffs and to look for any problems in our editing during the case, but the committee did not see fit name any of us in the final decision. How then can AE see fit to add our names to the case decision without warnings, without diffs, and without giving us a chance to defend ourselves against the accusations? If the arbs think it's such an insignificant thing to have your name on such a list, would they be willing to add the names of ALL the editors who participated in that AE case, and not just a few of us non-admins, selected at random? Would they be willing to add their own names, and that of Sandstein as well to the list? —Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * For the umpteen time, a review of DS is underway that will prevent this kind of situation arising in the future and help deal with the current situation. Constant sideshows are simply reducing my time to try to move the review on. In the interim, I suggest that replaces, as a gesture of his commitment to resolving this swiftly, the current warnings with neutrally worded notifications, and updates the log accordingly. If anyone wants more than that, we would need to hear from them directly as we only hear such requests from the principals.   Roger Davies  talk 08:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I'd like to hear from . There's no point in my making any suggestions to move this forwards if they are going to to be unacceptable to him.  Roger Davies  talk 08:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gathering my thoughts on this a bit. All we need at this point from is a brief statement setting out the issue and requesting a remedy. It does though seem to me that all this drama is about the underlined words "If you continue to misconduct yourself" as the rest of the complained about notice is in general terms. If my understanding is correct, I'll propose a motion shortly,   Roger Davies  talk 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the diff(s) from the log works for me too as the simplest and less bureaucratic route forward. It seems that my colleagues are moving towards consensus here so, unless someone objects and wants a formal motion, we can probably implement this sometime later today.  Roger Davies  talk 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My choice became the de-diffing option a couple of days ago. Which has now been implemented. As far as I'm concerned, we're done here.  Roger Davies  talk 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roger. I would also add that making disparaging comments on indefinitely blocked users is to be avoided if at all possible as they are unable to respond to comments made here. There is no principle of equivalence operating here. Someone being blocked indefinitely at some point after a notification doesn't tar others who were notified at the same time with the same brush. Rather, it may be an indication that the notifications worked to the extent that the users notified backed off, or were sensible enough not to engage in conduct to get themselves blocked - which is a good thing! Currently, what is most damaging the reputation of some of the users notified is their (by now) over-reaction to the notification, which will be remembered long after the original dispute has been forgotten. Roger, did you mean Neotarf, not SMcCandlish? Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updating my views here. I won't stand in the way of the changes being proposed by several arbitrators, but I took the time to look a bit deeper into this and what I see concerns me. The four editors concerned have reacted to this in different ways. Noetica retired, Ohconfucius largely got on with other editing and made mostly short statements when the issue arose. It is Neotarf and SMcCandlish who have protested loudest and at greatest length about this. I took a closer look at what SMcCandlish has said on this and I've been looking at some of what is mentioned in User:SMcCandlish/notes. I am extremely wary of sending the message here that modifying the notifications that were given by Sandstein will be seen as a green signal to return to the same tone and style of discussions that were evident before those notifications were given. I scanned down the list of SMcCandlish's edits in the past year, and came across this one (from October 2013). That edit (on the topic of capitalisation) displays the sort of battleground attitude that Wikipedia needs less of, not more, regardless of whether an editor is right or not (a lot of what is said there makes sense, and would be perfect in an essay, but the trenchant and aggressive tone used there should not be an acceptable form of discourse on Wikipedia). Even if Sandstein's original notification was not warranted, that edit alone indicates SMcCandlish's inability to control their feelings on this topic and that should be real cause for concern (arguably, that edit alone would have warranted some form of action at the time). I have also read the discussion here where SMcCandlish says they will "consider returning, if my dispute with a particular admin is resolved". My concern is that on returning to more active editing SMcCandlish will continue to display the sort of attitude displayed in that edit in October 2013, so I am considering proposing a motion to censure SMcCandlish for that edit and place them on notice about their future conduct in this topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so sum up my views now that we have statements from all four affected editors and from Sandstein. As far as I can see, the only one of the four editors whose conduct definitely warrants a note on the record is SMcCandlish. This is borne out by the conduct that led to the restriction on him that is still in force and should (in my view) have led to further sanctions if that October 2013 edit had been picked up on earlier. The record of that sanction against SMcCandlish is sufficient for future purposes so no log is needed on the case page for him. What I propose is a formal motion: (a) either leaving intact or modifying in some way (such as the un-diff-ing that has been proposed) or removing the original notifications left by Sandstein; and (b) reminding all four editors "to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus." (this is taken from the 'All parties reminded' bit of the case). The record of this motion that will be left on the talk page of the case will suffice to demonstrate that these editors are aware of this reminder if future AE requests are made. This is largely the same as what Johuniq proposed. I'll write up the motions in an hour or two. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Noetica, you misunderstand. I am proposing removing the notification from Sandstein for all four of you (including SMcCandlish) and effectively replacing it with a reiteration of the reminder in the case that was applied to all the parties. None of you should need reminding, but from what I've seen some of you at least do. I agree that if more is done, that matters should be handled separately for the four of you as you have all reacted and handled yourself in very different ways following the notifications. It was trivial on scanning back through SMcCandlish's edits over the past year (apart from the recent flurry, there were not many of them) to see the ones where he added large walls of text. There are other examples beside the one I pointed out. And no, he has not gone to the talk page of that WikiProject to apologise for the tone of what he said there. SMcCandlish, unlike the other three of you, has actually been sanctioned, with a topic ban (for one month, since expired) and a current restriction that is still in force. I don't buy the argument that his conduct deteriorated after Sandstein's actions. SMcCandlish was put on notice but carried on anyway. Given what Neotarf posted to my talk page, I'll hold off on any motion for now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear from the involved parties as well, but, from what I've read elsewhere, it appears that SMcCandlish does not object to NE Ent's solution. If that's the case, then said solution seems to be the best way forward, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarifying a bit my position, I have probably already told you this, but I think that your approach to WP:AE is overly formalistic and bureaucratic and, speaking personally, I consider this a problem. This case is a good example of your approach; you warned a couple of editors who apparently have a problem with the way the warning was worded. Now, there are two possible solutions: a. we remove the diff of the warning from the log, leaving the rest (i.e. the date and the identity of the administrator who logged the alert) or b. we follow NE Ent's solution. Both solutions, in my opinion, solve the problem, in that the new notification (or the old now-"undiffed" one) meets the requirements of form for alerts and also satisfies these editors' request not to have what they reasonably perceive as an allegation of misbehaviour on an officially-looking Wikipedia page. Yet you oppose NE Ent's solution. Why? I mean, what's the concrete problem it would cause? As I said, this looks the best way forwards to me...  Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got to say I rather like Salvio's idea of having an un-diffed log for these cases... Worm TT( talk ) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objection from the rest of my colleagues, I have implemented the suggestion agreed by the arbitrators above. To my mind, with the discretionary sanctions review nearing completion, this clarification request is therefore resolved. AGK  [•] 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the action that has been taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation (March-April 2015)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by RGloucester at 15:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&diff=653902342&oldid=653898258

Statement by RGloucester
This matter came up at WP:AE. In responding to an AE request that I filed, Callanecc suggested that the discretionary sanctions for Manual of Style and article titles-related matters only applied directly to project space MoS and AT pages, rather than to edits to articles. He said, "And I agree that the short term, limited IBAN I quickly thought of won't solve the underlying problem; but, from my reading of the discretionary sanctions they can't be used to take the action (somewhat like Blueboar suggested) needed". This seems a bit absurd, if it is the case. These sanctions have not been used since 2012, insofar as I can see. Despite endless disputes in this area of conflict, most users are not even aware of their existence according to the standard AC/DS awareness procedure. Is the reason that they have not been used because they only apply absolutely directly to MoS and AT pages? Do these sanctions apply to edits to the article space? I would suggest from my own reading that they do. If they do not, one might as well consider revoking the sanctions, as they are not serving any purpose, and shan't do if that's what the scope was intended to be.
 * If this is indeed the case, would you or other arbitrators consider a motion to amend the DS so as to include all discussions/actions in the area of conflict (MoS and AT)? Without such a motion, the DS are toothless, useless, and should be revoked. It strikes me that remedy 1.2 applies directly to the type of MoS/AT disputes that have been ongoing. It is exactly the type of remedy needed in this area, even if these discussions do not take place on AT/MoS pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Has it ended the "edit wars", or has it simply moved to them to other pages? None of these disputes have stopped. They merely continue across hundreds of scattered pages. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho
The requestor himself, RGloucester, has been involved in article title disputes, especially with me. I would like to give you evidence, but the request is about clarification or amendment. Recently, he has been reported at WP:ANI for his actions and behavior, such as gaming the aftermath of requested moves at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. Well, I too am involved in such disputes without him. I have been requesting moves for a while, but I have dealt with warriors of article titles. Who is more disruptive: me for making many requests or RGloucester for his actions? If neither a clarification nor an amendment is enough, perhaps we should have a case involving the requestor himself and/or another case involving titles and capitalisation. I do want to request a case on him, but I haven't seen him going too far yet lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
I think some editors would benefit from reading and thinking about the comment I made here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 30 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.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse, obviously. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Recuse as a clerk, having stated an opinion as an editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Update) I've asked the clerks to close this request as resolved, assuming a colleague does not request otherwise in the next day or two. AGK  [•] 17:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I find Callan's interpretation to be a reasonable one based on a direct reading of the scope (all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed) and a reading of the scope in context of the findings of fact. I am unsure if move discussions that relate to the article titles policy are covered by DS since the scope does not say all pages and discussions related to..., like Panderson's topic ban. What seems clear to me is that articles and the movement of articles are not placed under DS by this remedy. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe for discussions, no for page moves. If I remember correctly from when I was a clerk, the case came out of a number of disputes that raged on WP:MOS and WT:MOS in 2010-2012. The DS has ended the endless edit wars there and continues to keep the peace. To call it useless ignores this fact. Including page moves would be a massive expansion of the DS based on a single AE thread; I even have moved pages based on the MoS and haven't ended up in controversy for it. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The original case had a scope of the content of internal Wikipedia pages. The remedies were not written so as to, for instance, restrict all use of dashes and other MOS items: that would be difficult to enforce and could lead to ludicrous enforcement scenarios. I would therefore uphold the interpretation being disputed in this clarification request. AGK  [•] 23:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. The reading of the scope of sanctions is in line with the scope of the case and their wording. An expansion of them to cover all article space would be very broad indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of the sanctions, and their written scope, is limited to project space, and does not extend to specific, individual debates about what an article title should be. And the latter would be very, very broad indeed. Courcelles (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. The scope of the sanctions relates to project space pages about the Manual of Style, not to discussions about the titles of specific articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some 2016 followup
Guerillero, as the title of WP:ARBATC indicates, it has as much to do with WP:AT-related disputes (which in practice are almost entirely at WP:RM) as WP:MOS ones. The of ongoing dispute and incivility relating to ARBATC is in and around RM discussions, especially regarding capitalization and punctuation in titles. Very little of this discussion happens at the AT or MOS talk pages, and is mostly tendentious nastiness on a page-by-page basis in RMs. I find it very hard to credit that the intent of the ARBATC decision was to not apply to RM; this ex post facto reinterpreting of it that way is impractical and will not have a productive result.

Re: "The DS has ended the endless edit wars there [at MOS] and continues to keep the peace" – Wishful thinking. There's no evidence of this, and those of us active in the area know what's actually happened is some mega-tendentious parties have simply gotten themselves banned, for long-term patters of disruption. An enormous amount of incivility, circular debate, editwarring, PoV pushing, OR, and battlegrounding over trivia suddenly stopped with each ban or indef, and with it all manner of instability and strife, when a sockpuppeteering would-be OWNer of MoS/AT was shown the door a few years ago. The exact same thing has happened with the shut-out, since early 2016, of another MoS/AT "great wrong" campaigner. You can look at page stats, like number of edits and reverts at MoS pages, volume of posts to MoS talk pages, etc., and see what bright-line events these were.

Meanwhile, virtually no one knows what the DS about MOS and AT actually say, they don't pay any attention to them, no one enforces them against actually incivil parties who repeatedly transgress WP:ARBATC, even after multiple notices and warnings, and the DS are never used at all except in a gaming way as threats against a few MoS regulars. If you are not an MOS regular, you are free to show up an at MOS page and make all kinds of vile attacks, and no one will ever do anything about it at all.

AT and MOS conflict have reduced from a rolling boil to a random few fizzy bubbles here and there not because of WP:AC/DS but because the editorial personality pool has shifted in a mature and stable direction, and the regulars have grown thick skins. The polemic screamers have been hooked off the stage, and those of us who remain are an agile improv team, remarkably tolerant of hecklers, and who do not run crying to AE every time someone is shitty to us. We never go there unless the disruption has become intolerable. When's the last time any of us actually opened a WP:RFARB? Years.

If ArbCom thinks that AC/DS is having a useful effect in this area, they're mistaken. Try dropping off an ARBATC some time; it universally has the opposite of the intended effect, is perceived as an attack, and tends to engender an increase not decrease in tendentious behavior at MOS, AT, and RM. The primary effect of ARBATC is just to increase the stress levels of anyone working in this part of the project, because it paints targets on their heads. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation (April 2016)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


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


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

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

Block

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


 * Question
 * Answer
 * Response

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

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

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

Ban

Procedural problems


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


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


 * It was almost entirely false.


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


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

Faulty information

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

Per wordcount, I address only some accusations below.

"Bogus" ENGVAR

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

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

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

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

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

"Battlegrounding"

I've crossed "party" lines extensively.


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


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


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


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


 * Articles

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

DTS

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

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

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

Editwarring

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

Compliance

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

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

Requests

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

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

"Stirring up discontent"

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

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

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

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

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

{{ping|

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

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

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

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

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

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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



Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request (December 2016)
Original discussion

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


 * Case or decision affected


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


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


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


 * Block of Darkfrog24
 * Unblock


 * Topic ban of Darkfrog24
 * Revisit

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

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

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

This is first because it is necessary.

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

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

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

Why this accusation


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

Why this is worth ArbCom's time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Statement by SMcCandlish
In a user talk post concurrent with this ARCA, Darkfrog24 opens with a renewal of this user's pursuit of vengeance against me: "My own case is complicated. Short version: It started when I was targeted by a liar with a grudge". Nothing has changed, and this self-defeating ARCA is not "complicated" at all, but essentially identical to the last one, in April. DarkFrog24 was instructed in no uncertain terms to stop beating the dead horse of her personalized campaign against me (,, among other admonitions), and failure to do so was one of the main reasons the very narrow t-ban became a broader one, then a block, then an indef. The direct tie between abandoning this vendetta and perhaps being allowed to return to edit again was made clear, not just repeatedly at AE but also by admins at DF24's own talk page (multiple times, this is just the latest one, from June): Now here we are again, with DF24 not asking to return to WP to work on something else, but dwelling entirely on the general topic of the topic ban, continued pursuit of a hounding effort against me that stems directly and entirely from that topic, and why everyone else is wrong. This editor is clearly not getting the point, on a long-term if not permanent basis, and equally clearly is just biding time restart the same fray. Both of these were the other major factors in the escalating series of sanctions against DF24, who pestered AE admins incessantly with an "I just don't understand" act and constant border-testing for weeks until indeffed, and resumed the same behavior when allowed to edit her user talk page again (cf. the threads I just cited from June and October).
 * "[T]he time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban." ( .]
 * And later by someone else: "You've been told by admins to stop relitigating, and yet you keep relitigating (as with pretty much your entire reply, immediately above)." (, October, from a series of posts that are clearly stated to be responses to Wikipedia e-mails DF24 had been sending to pursue involvement in the topic-ban issue and against other editors associated with it.)
 * See also: "[W]hat is argued here is that everyone else was wrong, and a wall of text about minutiae is offered as proof. As for the block, you are blocked until you 'understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it'; neither of these conditions are met, obviously." (, in April ARCA ).


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I do see that my words were not precise, above, about what you're wanting to do against SMcCandlish. I've fixed that. Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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



Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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


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


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


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

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation (February 2017)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

This isn't about any parties in particular. While Thryduulf is mentioned (and pinged), I make no allegations about the admin's judgement or actions (I agree with his scope determination, though not with his desire to apply it to the party at the ANI in question.)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Please clarify whether WP:ARBATC's discretionary sanctions rule (which may need to be clarified) applies to all discussions about "the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" including WP:Requested moves discussions or not. I think that they must, since these are the distributed locus of the vast majority of title style disputes on Wikipedia, as well as of most of the aspersions cast and other incivility about those things. The majority of templates I've delivered have been in response to AGF, NPA, CIVIL, and ASPERSIONS problems in RMs.

Arb at ANI very recently said he would, if not INVOLVED, have discretionarily sanctioned someone for alleged RM-related disruption, under ARBATC specifically. However, I'm also aware of at least one previous case or ARCA in which it was strongly argued but perhaps not formally decided that RM was somehow exempt from ARBATC. I would urge that ARBATC's broad construal of scope include RM, or there was little point in enacting it. There's very little disputation that would trigger ARBATC at places like WT:AT or WP:MOS, and only very sporadically about article content, but almost about moves. If anything, that problem has notably worsened over the last two years, probably emboldened by lack of DS enforcement, even as "style" dispute has receded elsewhere, system-wide. While a large proportion of requested moves involve a "style" matter (WP:MOS-connected or not), even those that don't – about things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, disambiguation, WP:CONCISE, etc. – are still within the WP:AT remit. I.e., if it's at RM, it is about "article titles policy, broadly construed" by definition (and also often about the MoS).

The confusion arises because the exact wording is unfortunate, and easily WP:GAMEd: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." The gaming is that while WP:RM per se is obviously within the scope of article titles policy, the RM discussions themselves take place on individual article (or non-article) talk pages, and they aren't technically "pages related to" AT or MoS. The intent of the provision was clearly to curtail style-and-title conflict, and it fails to do this as long as it is actively gameable as inapplicable to nasty behavior in RMs, or (more often) admins are uncertain they can enforce the DS in an RM discussion and so do nothing, or perhaps wag a finger. I rely on our principle (mentioned at GAMING, WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, and I think WP:PROCESS and WP:POLICY) that WP's rules are interpreted and intended to be interpreted as to their intent and spirit, and their role in the project as facilitators of getting the work done, not with any eye to finding loopholes and escape clauses to exploit. There seems no "danger" in clarifying that the scope of the DS includes RM discussions, since everyone gets at least one before DS can apply to them anyway. I.e., anyone being a WP:JERK in RM gets away with it at least once until brought up to speed that it's not acceptable. And the behaviors in question aren't acceptable anyway, per the policies and behavioral guidelines the DS would be used to enforce.

The problem can be fixed by amending "all pages related to" to "all discussions related to". This would also have the side benefit of curtailing ARBATC-scope verbal abuse in user talk, ANI, and other venues, where it is also frequent. I believe that a great deal of title-and-style strife will evaporate, replaced by civil, reasoned discussion that focuses on policy and sources instead of personalities and WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH grandstanding, if civility policies are more actively enforced in RMs. All it takes is a one-word, common-sense amendment. It would also be more consistent with other DS cases, which don't have special exemptions for RM or any other particular forum, but apply to the topic generally.

Responses to commenters
@Andrew Dingley: The fact that an admin's DS-related comment in a particular case conflicts with previous admin comments in the other direction is why I seek clarification is neither here nor there. Your conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true; while I agree with Dicklyon about many things, we disagree about others. I'm seeking clear applicability of DS to RM given doubts about the matter, even though an admin in question wanted to apply them to a person you presume to be my lock-step ally. All of this has been long on my mind, since reading the ARCA request that RGloucester re-identified; recent events simply bring it to mind afresh. Instead of making up fantasies about my motives without any evidence, actually and take it at face value. PS: You complaining about and misinterpreting a routine notice isn't other editors accusing me of harassment [that entire thread was hatted quite rapidly, too]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: It has nothing to do with you either, but with a conflict between what Thryduulf has said and what was said in the ARCA that RGloucester dug up [and various other admins' conflicting interpretations]. This couldn't be about you since no DS would be applying to you for anything you've posted, those things having been posted before you received a Ds/alert. As I said, the majority of the uncivil style/titles disputation is at RM not elsewhere, and the majority of Ds/alerts I leave relate to them. Not everything is about you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BMK: I'm not making a complaint, against anyone [I'm studiously avoiding doing so; I don't even expect Thruduulf to recuse, but to give his views about why DS should apply to RM]. I'm asking for a scope clarification, because this question of ARBATC's actual scope keeps coming up for several years now, and different answers keep being given, including by Arbs. The ANI being referred to simply reminded me that this needs to be settled one way or the other. I'm really not very devious. I would think this is pretty obvious after over a decade here. I'm very direct and just call it like I see it, without much regard for "wikipolitics" (in fact, I like to short-circuit wikipoliticking as much as possible, because I think it's corrosive to the community and project, increasingly so as the editorial and admin pools condense. Or you can continue to make assumptions about my motives.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: Mischaracterizing editors who disagree with you as like unto religious zealots is precisely the kind of personalization of style disputes that WP:ARBATC is intended to address. Update: So was your "I feel pretty safe in ignoring anything you say as being wrong, self-serving, or intellectually dishonest" assumption of bad faith. Your response here, again indicating a false belief that Ds/alert is a threat/warning about misconduct, not a notice of DS scope applicability, just proves my point further at WT:ARBCOM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Updated 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Agreed, though I'm primarily concerned about more unicvil statements that most of those quotes (e.g. referring to other editors as "obnoxious and ... twatty", "idiots", "fanatical enforcers", plus comments like "I don't give a shiny shit about civility when it comes to people like you"). This kind of behavior is common across all "style" disputes (MOS, AT, infoboxes, citation formatting, etc.), and would not be tolerated if it were about Palestine or GMOs or race. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not kept track of who's on or off ArbCom lately. :-) I generally agree strongly with your interpretation, yet ask you the same question I asked Euryalus, below. ARBATC is ARBATC, not "ARBMOS".  Nothing has ever limited to the scope of ARBATC to MoS discussions and doing so here would actually be a much more major change in ARBATC scope and interpretation than applying ARBATC (to its full AT and/or MOS-related scope) regardless of venue including RM, as I've requested, per "broadly construed".  While MoS-related incivility was mostly what I've been thinking of, people sometimes cross the line about other AT-related stuff, especially PRIMARY and disambiguation squabbles (the more the topic in question attracts fannishness, the higher the likelihood of hostile territorialism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Responses to Arbs
I agree the level of disputation/striving is much greater at ANI, especially given the frequency with which it involves new editors (RM rarely does). But the level of incivility of a very predictable and consistent and continually ongoing kind, from particular parties, is much more apparent at RM, and has been on the increase for some time, turning into a sort of "this guideline will be applied over my dead body", RM-after-RM-after-RM tendentiousness. It could be another ArbCom case, but that would seem like a bunch of pointless drama if one one-word change to the original decision could permit admins to just deal with it at AE. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm loath to provide example diffs, because the kind I have in mind – in the AGF/CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS vein especially, like labelling other editors "obsessive nutters" and implying various specific destructive or unhinged motives to them – would essentially be seen as trying to make disciplinary cases against specific editors (and might be likely to turn into them whether that were my intent or not). If I'd thought that route would be productive, I would have just opened an RfARB and named a bunch of parties [including all of the non-Arbs who have commented here so far as of 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)]. I did consider it, but it seemed likely to generate heat without light.

Why would that MoS line be drawn, when ARBATC is about disputes involving the article titles policy the MoS (both are not required at once)? RM's are always about article titles, so they would always be under the "AT" in ARBATC. The original case had as much to do with MoS-unrelated AT conflict as MoS. The only block I've ever received was an ARBATC DS action for alleged disruption of RM a few years ago. So, DS have definitely been applied to RM before. [I dispute the allegation behind the block, made by an admin who did not look into the background of the matter and just picked one side to muzzle – but the block was so short it was not effectively appealable; by the time AN concluded I had to refile at AE or ARCA, it was too late. The moves under discussion later went the way I had proposed. Later, the same admin tried to topic ban me, again under ARBATC, and again to silence one side of an equally heated debate, and derailed an ongoing ANEW in the process; AN retroactively voided his action, and the report I'd been making at ANEW was later taken seriously. Same admin was RfARBed around this time last year, with more complainants than I've ever seen with grievances against a single admin, though action was not taken at that time, on a technicality.] I would like to have that block declared invalid if ARBATC is held to not apply to RM, since that "scarlet letter" has repeatedly been held against me in a punitive fashion. PS: I agree that different regimes of DS should be normalized into something consistent.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the onus is on me as the requester to make the case for this "expansion" (in my view, clarification) of the scope, I would add to what I've said already:
 * The gist of the concerns, as expressed by someone above (and it seems consistent with comments in the old ARCA) is a "surprise ArbCom sanction" and "effectively plac[ing] thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction". But that's doubly inaccurate.
 * There's nothing "surprise" about it if you must receive a Ds/alert before any DS can be applied; and AE tends not to act in applying DS after such a warning anyway, unless the case is egregious or it's a multi-time repeat problem after the Ds/alert. The number of editors likely to be affected by DS would probably be countable on a single hand, even a few years later, but the strife level should drop notably just from AE issuing a few admonitions.
 * It would not be placing "pages" under DS; this would have no effect on any discussion on any talk page unless that discussion in particular were a) about article titles or the MoS b) rife with disruptive or uncivil behavior (which are against policy to begin with).
 * One could stipulate that DS/alerts delivered before the scope clarification don't count (though this would be inconsistent with a previous ARCA decision that these notices cannot be rescinded or invalidated because they are just notices of scope, not conduct accusations or warnings).
 * Finally, "broadly construed" has no applicable meaning if ARBATC is held to apply only to discussions at WT:AT, WT:MOS and the talk pages other naming convention and MoS sub-guidelines; that's narrowly construed by definition. The clear intent of that wording was to construe the scope as covering title and style discussions broadly. Even if I'm misreading the original intent, it seems obvious that extending, if you like, the scope to AT/MoS "discussions", rather than "pages", would have a civility-reinforcing effect at little if any cost.


 * So, what, the current roiling pot of title- and style-related incivility and disruptive battlegrounding is going to continue forever, and worsen when people realize they're immune to DS if they do it at RM or otherwise away from WT:AT and WT:MOS? Are we supposed to open a new RfARB every time?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by
Of course this isn't "not about any parties in particular", it's a direct reaction to an ANI thread, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, seeking a TBAN on for disruptive and over-simplistic pushing of a style guide over objectively sourced external uses with capitalisation. SMcCandlish's own behaviour and harassment of other editors has been questioned in the same thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester
The relevant past ARCA request that SMcCandlish said he could not find is here. The conclusion there was that these DS only apply to guideline and policy pages related to the MOS and AT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee: Now that various individual arbitrators have stated a position on this matter, and given that there seem to be mixed messages apparent in their responses, perhaps the Committee could decide the scope of these sanctions together, with clarity, and publish an official clarification in the form of a motion. As it is now, it is quite clear that everyone has a different definition of how these sanctions should apply. That type of ambiguity should not be present in a DS regime. It isn't fair to editors, nor to administrators who must attempt to enforce such sanctions. I'm asking this with sincerity. The reason this issue has come up again is because the last clarification request, which I submitted, was essentially ignored. If the DS regime is meant to apply only to policy/guideline-type pages in the project space, then publish a motion to that effect. Likewise, if the scope is different, and includes RM discussions or whatever. Please do this, for the good of the encylopaedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it would be greatly appreciated by everyone if the Committee would pass a formal motion of clarification so that the scope of these sanctions is clear to all parties. This doesn't seem like a particularly complex matter, and it is one that only the Committee can address. Please do so. Letting this languish like the last clarification motion will only lead to further submissions at ARCA. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by
I believe this to be in response to something I said to SMcCandlish, when he gave me an ArbCom notice for a page that was not under any ArbCom sanction and I told him I'd be ignoring it on that basis. I'm glad to see, from reading the relevant discussion, that the interpretation isn't as broad as SMcCandlish thinks it is - it would have effectively placed thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction without any justification. I'd like to call upon SMcCandlish to remove any ArbCom notices he has mistakenly posted on user talk pages, and he should leave apologies in their place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk)

Further note: Interpreting the decision as suggested above by SMcCandlish would involve a lot more than just "changing one word" - like I've said, it will affect thousands of pages, putting every single discussion that involves any Manual of Style related issue under some sort of surprise ArbCom sanction that can be deployed by editors determined to press home their point. It will be a massive, sweeping change if it is decided that the ArbCom decision really IS that wide. This definitely isn't a simple case of changing a few words and sending us on our way. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a huge loophole that should be closed definitively. If a page is under an ArbCom sanction it should be correctly labelled on its talk page, and those that aren't marked as such should be implicitly not seen as being under ArbCom sanctions. Leaving it up to the interpretation of editors clearly isn't working. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Question So, is this issue going to be allowed to stagnate? There's a loophole that you could fly a 747 through & it needs to be rectified - it's no exaggeration to say that there could be hundreds of talk page discussions affected by an unintended, wide ranging scope that doesn't match any other ArbCom-related issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
A couple of very quick points:
 * SMcandlish's inquiry is clearly not a general one, but is obviously related to this ANI complaint about Dicklyon, in which SmCandlish has been active;
 * The complaint against Dicklyon centers around an issue of capitalization, which is most definitely a MoS issue, and is specifically related to Dicklyon making controversial changes without using the RM process designed for such changes;
 * This appears to me to be, as Andy Dingely wrote on AN/I, a case of SMcCandlish inappropriately forum shopping. I would urge that this complaint be shut down in favor of the AN/I complaint coming to fruition.  If, at that time, SMcCandlish wishes to open a further complaint elsewhere, that would be fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Calton
Based on this ludicrous DIscretionary Sanctions warning that User:SMcCandlish left in response to this edit, I'd say that it's not just forum-shopping, but a lack of actual understanding of discretionary sanctions in general (and of this one in particular) which should lead to this request being rejected and User:SMcCandlish trouted with all due speed. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that the fifth item Dicklyon quotes is mine. I also notice that he doesn't mention that it's a direct echo of SMcandlish's own rant, ''I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them...'' But I'm guessing some rants are more equal than others and are A-OK. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon
I don't know if the DS was intended to apply to discussions invoking anti-MOS rants, but if so then the personalization and MOS-related mud slinging in the linked AN/I case would appear to make the warning relevent to participants who attacked me and the MOS as a unit:
 * The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia
 * Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus.
 * I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors.
 * that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive
 * ... simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), ...
 * I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith?
 * it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not

This was all posted as alternatives to saying anything that I actually did that was controversial, which I have repeatedly asked for there. It is as if some set of editors think that changes that bring things into closer conformity with the MOS are inherently controversial, even if very few get challenged. The inability of my accusers to say what edits of mine they would consider controversial, and this resort to MOS bashing instead, is rather infuriating, and I think that SMcCandlish meant to get them to think about that, even if he denies the warning was placed in response to any specific posts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to Calton on the fifth one (which is now the sixth one since I added one): yes some MOS-related rants are more equal than others. These are ones that "attacked me and the MOS as a unit", as I said above. There was no call for you to respond to SMcCandlish's by attacking me with yours, even if his was meant to defend me. I have made no pretense of being anything like a "High Priest and Defenders of the Faith", and consider your comment a baseless slur, which matters a lot to me since it was in an AN/I section about me. It appears that you had no actual beef with me, but decided to attack me anyway, personally. That's why I listed your remark here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re article titles)
Firstly a quick clarification: I'm not an arbitrator, only a former one (and the relevant case here predates my time on the Committee). Also the ping didn't work (for whatever reason).

It has been my impression that discussions related to the manual of style, in whatever venue, are covered by the ARBATC DS authorisation, and that at least one editor has been previously sanctioned regarding their editing of requested moves (possibly Born2cycle but I don't have time to check right now). This I think would tally with Euryalus's feelings that the DS apply to RM discussions where the manual of style is a principle issue (e.g. whether railway line articles should be at "X Line" or "X line" per WP:MOSCAPS) but not to move discussions for other reasons (e.g. that currently happening at Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)). Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Determining the scope is very easy - if the rationale given for the move is to conform to a MoS guideline (often, but not exclusively, capitalisation) or the manual of style guidelines are used as a rationale to oppose a proposed move then it is within the scope of the DS. Communicating this should be very simple - (a) notify the MoS regulars via MoS talk page post(s), and (b) notify the participants of the discussions where it is relevant, most easily by a template similar to the ones that are placed on article pages. I do not see how this would be a massive expansion in either scope or intended scope.
 * @all arbitrators: Given though that we have arbitrators coming to exactly opposite interpretations of what the intent was and the scope currently is, I have to echo RGloucester's call for a formal clarification motion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * just fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled a bit, so please could we have a formal clarification about what the scope actually is - this section has some pretty clear evidence that it is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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



Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've just taken a look at the proposed decision page in the original case (which is where arbitrators comment on the principles, findings, and remedies as they cast their votes), and it appears clear that the intent at the time of the case was to apply DS to discussions relating to the policy and guidelines pages themselves, not to individual article and talk pages. The specific question of whether the DS would apply to a move request discussion was not raised or considered. These DS have been in place for almost five years and I'd be interested in whether they have been invoked in that context before, but from what has been posted so far it looks like the answer is no. Whether the scope of the DS should be extended to include every RM discussion is a different question, and the burden of persuasion is on those seeking the change. I'm aware from various AN/ANI threads that there have been flare-ups in this area, including at least one that is ongoing, but would one say that the typical contested RM discussion is more contentious than, say, the typical contested deletion discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reading over the PD I see NYB's point, and I think it's in the spirit of the decision to have DS apply to discussions. What's interesting in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Proposed_decision is a short bit of discussion between AGK and Courcelles, though that didn't extend into the wording that's being discussed here. I've seen a few RM discussions in the last years, and none that I recall were derailed or devolved into chaos and incivility because of these specific concerns--but that may not mean much. I do not in principle disagree with the proposal (or a similar proposal) though I am interested in seeing just a few examples to prove the need for it. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From a reading of Courcelles' comment at the PD, and also from what is hopefully a commonsense interpretation, the DS seem intended to apply to applicable discussions where MOS issues were the central theme. In this instance the DS would apply to an RM discussion only where the principal issue in that discussion was directly related to the MOS. The DS would not apply to other RM discussions, akin to the way topic bans apply to parts of articles directly related to that topic, but not necessarily to every other part of the same article. That's an interpretation for this ARCA; on a related note we will one day need to consider the advisability of so many DS regimes, collectively applied to so many WP pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My take is that DS would apply if the crux of the issue with the name change of an article was directly related to capitalization. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I expected this to be an obvious one - it seems fairly clear to me that the intended scope was discussions on the MOS pages (and related policies, etc), not discussions about applications of the MOS in individual cases. I think the latter interpretation would vastly expand the scope of DS in a way that is nearly impossible to apply objectively (how do you decide when a discussion is "directly" related?) and similarly difficult to communicate to editors who are not regular participants in the RM process. Providing such an expansion as a de facto response to a specific incident involving a specific editor would be an overreaction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the workshop, it appears introduced the central language around this remedy and it was intended to prevent "MOS pages from being a battleground". On the PD talk,  commented, "the reference to "MOS" is a drafting error; when we say MOS, we mean WP:TITLE". The wording wasn't corrected to make this distinction, so it was either expanded to encompass and effectively seek to counter a wide range of MOS incidents, or it was simply missed. As it's written now, it states all MOS pages and WP:TITLE. I would say this ambiguity still narrows it down to the Wikipedia space and principally discussions pages, but whether it's confined to WT:MOS and WT:TITLE was not explicitly expressed. It seems to me, if the nucleus of the RM discussion was MOS or TITLE related, then I can easily see how someone could interpret these DS as being applicable. The fact that MOS is so broad is somewhat troubling because it potentially casts this DS net very wide. Mkdw  talk  06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Opabinia regalis that this should obviously not apply to individual move discussions. Looking at Mkdw's point just above, I interpret this to refer to the MOS with respect to titles and capitalization only. I read "to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy," as a single phrase. If we need to expand this further, we would need to discuss it. In fact, at the AfDs on Infoboxes, we made specific provisions for that part of the MOS.  DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't see this as applicable to move discussions, particularly with no evidence to suggest that there has been a problem related to this PD. Doug Weller  talk 15:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Article titles and capitalization
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) This is my understanding of the existing decision. If a pattern emerges of serious problems in these discussions, an amendment request could be filed&mdash;but I very sincerely hope that won't be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  Doug Weller  talk 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) This was the intent at the time. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) I find it less easy to judge the "intent at the time", but I prefer to play it conservatively and not extend until an amendment is proposed--or, "per NYB". Drmies (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) In order to move this along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) When we are looking at what previous ArbCom's have proposed and passed, I always have looked to the discussion surrounding it. Several explanations have appeared throughout this ARCA, and it's not specifically clear in this case which means we should be going for the strictest application of the motion/remedy/whatever passed at the time. As for any potential DS expansion, I always need evidence that the modified topic area has been disrupted, which we don't have here. The 2015 ARCA was clear, maybe not sufficiently clear, so that leaves me at a support for this motion. I also see a negative light shining in from the ANI here that any addition to the DS would be used to subvert community consensus or lack-there-of. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Mostly per Newyorkbrad.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) We're already at majority but I think there could have been specific and isolating wording allowing ARBATC discretionary sanctions for project space  request move discussions where MOS and TITLE is the principal issue . I would have hoped that discretionary sanctions in this context would be only applied where absolutely necessary and appropriately following 'awareness' and other provisions. In the original case, requested move discussions were cited by several editors as being areas where MOS and TITLE disputes have occurred. In reading the 2015 ARCA and previous discussions, this issue has been brought up more than once and clarified that they were only meant for the project space. It would have been helpful to know if ARBATC discretionary sanctions have been routinely applied at requested move discussions (in the project space) and whether or not these discretionary sanctions have likely kept disputes from occurring. Without further input or information, I'm uncertain whether this clarification will re-open a venue for MOS and TITLE disputes to occur. I do think the community did need clarification on this issue which passing this clarifiation will hopefully provide and that "broadly construed" was far too wide and could have been used to implement sanctions well beyond the intended scope. Mkdw  talk  07:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * The comments above seem to be somewhat split, so we might as well just count noses. For my part, I can't really see authorizing DS on this broad of a scale as a de facto response to a specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) &sect;&thinsp;Discretionary sanctions
 * 2) &sect;&thinsp;Motion: Article titles and capitalization (February 2017)
 * 3) &sect;&thinsp;Enforcement log


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * &sect;&thinsp;Discretionary sanctions
 * Repeal


 * &sect;&thinsp;Motion: Article titles and capitalization (February 2017)
 * Annotate as moot


 * &sect;&thinsp;Enforcement log
 * Merge (if necessary) into the DS logs we now use, and delete from the case page

Statement by SMcCandlish
WP:ARBATC's application of discretionary sanctions (DS) to WP:Article titles, WP:Manual of Style, and related pages (MoS subpages, and AT's split-off naming conventions [NC] guidelines) has never been helpful, and is certainly no longer needed.
 * The DS-related banners at the top of the related talk pages have a chilling effect and aren't conducive to collaborative policy formation. In short, they're scary, and reduce rather than enhance community input into the management of AT/MoS.
 * The DS were authorized back when there was an unpleasant squabble going on between a small number of parties.
 * The party most disruptive at the time was later narrowly topic-banned, then blocked for further  disruption at WT:RM (not as a DS matter, since the DS do not apply to that page). ARBATC didn't restrain this person's "remake title policy in my image" activities; usual community process has done that.  Another party, was a WP:TBAN-evading sockpuppet, later dealt with by standard administrative means.
 * ARBATC did unreasonable damage immediately: party quit editing shortly after ARBATC, costing us a good editor. (There were no findings of fact about him doing anything wrong, but he was nevertheless accused-by-template of "continued wrongdoing", and resigned in protest.)
 * There is no sign of AT/MoS-related pages being subject to any disruptive activity of note since 2016, and that was caused by a single person who could have been dealt with at ANI.
 * Before that, the only major issue since ARBATC was in 2014, and resolved by RfC.
 * The kind of disruption addressed in ARBATC was short-term and minor compared to what DS are usually authorized for (e.g. "my ethnicity/religion/country versus yours" hate-mongering). It was primarily a four-editor personality conflict. Why do we have DS covering a policy page and of calm, quiet guideline pages for a localized squabble that ended years ago, and which didn't need DS to end it?
 * These DS, when applied at all, have mostly been used one-sidedly to punish AT/MoS regulars for minor transgressions, but never applied to critics of our title policy or style manual no matter how nasty they get in their behavior toward other editors. Some of these punitive-not-preventative DS actions against MoS maintainers were overturned by WP:AN as illegitimate.
 * The one time the ARBATC DS have been used to restrain a long-term disrupter of MoS-related pages, the DS route was, requiring at least four WP:AE reports nearly back-to-back (after previous noticeboard actions, e.g. at WP:ANEW, where ARBATC DS were inappropriately used to punish the filer – this is one of the invalid DS that AN vacated), constant relitigation at WP:ARCA and AE, and an enormous amount of drama (now entering its third year, still ongoing as of this very month).
 * WP:ANI would have handled this far more expediently, probably in one to two decisions (T-ban, followed by indef or community ban if necessary).
 * In a case where DS arguably could have been used effectively to restrain multi-party, organized disruption, absolutely nothing was done for years, until the community resolved it a huge RfC (after two earlier RfCs and a WP:MR). ARBATC was no help at all, and the community didn't need DS in the end. So why's it still there?

February 2017 re-scoping motion: It not only invalidated many of the previous ARBATC DS sanctions as having been out-of-scope, it made these DS so constrained – to only the AT/MOS pages and their talk pages – that they're. Almost all "style"-related disruptive activity takes place on article talk pages, mostly in WP:Requested moves threads (and most of the rest is at wikiproject talk pages). ArbCom was made aware of this, yet chose to drastically limit the DS scope anyway.

The committee themselves clearly recognize that the DS hammer should not be brought to bear on policy- and guideline-interpretation discussions broadly, and that normal community and administrative remedies are sufficient for disruptive activity in them. This was a wise decision, as an earlier ArbCom effectively telling the community that if anyone momentarily loses their temper in a WP:P&G-related thread it may result in unusual punishment is ultimately a separation of powers problem, an interference in WP's self-governance. WP policy material evolves over time in response to such discussions; it is not an immutable law no one is permitted to question. This was actually a central point in the ARBATC case itself (see initial comments by, for example).

"Enforcement log": It's just a short list of early recipients of, and there have been many more since. These notices/warnings officially expire after a year anyway. Twice already ArbCom has instructed that any items in that list that need to be retained should be merged into the newer DS logging system and this old "scarlet letter" material removed, yet it still hasn't been done years later.

Effect on sanctions: If the ARBATC DS are ended, this mustn't affect sanctions issued while DS were in effect. Let's not create another wikilawyering angle to exploit! If DS were the prescribed means in 2016 for dealing with AT/MoS disruption then, and the community should not have to re-re-re-litigate to restrain a disruptor from returning to the same activity on a technicality.

Standing: I was named as a party, despite no connection to the actual ARBATC dispute ("MoS editors" guilt by association). Since then, I've seen and personally felt WP:ARBATC doing nothing but causing trouble for Wikipedia and its editorial community – from punitive, disproportionate, and one-sided sanctions, to years of drama-mongering, to a disengagement of the community from its own policy and guideline pages; all while the DS have failed to actually help the community expediently resolve any actual At/MoS-related disruption.

The ARBATC DS are probably the single most obvious failure of DS to be a useful solution. Not every problem's a nail, so a hammer isn't the only tool we should use.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "I've seen how high the passions run in this area": But generally not at the AT/NC or MoS themselves nor their talk pages, which are the only ones covered by the DS any longer. The few times it's gotten out of hand, within an even vaguely relevant time-span (2014 is really pushing it), the standard community/admin remedies would have been not only sufficient but obviously better. And it wasn't because the "topic area" is fraught with drama, but because of a few specific individuals crossing WP:DE lines (with behavior that would be disruptive regardless of the subject, like intentional derailing of RfCs to thwart community input in both the specific cases I mentioned). This simply isn't comparable to ethno-ideological editwarring, or obsessive insertion of fringe medical claims, or constant Trump promotion vs. bashing, and other things where where DS regularly do have a palpable dispute-reduction effect. Everyone may have an opinion about titles and style, but very, very few are on a WP:GREATWRONGS crusade about them (and things don't fall apart even when one such arises; non-DS means routinely deal with it). The AT/MoS DS are simply disused; the community and the admin corps don't find them useful, and when they rarely are used, it's generally a trainwreck of questionable judgement or farcical bureaucracy. Shotguns are effective for hunting ducks, but not very useful for dealing with a mouse in the kitchen.  DS haven't even been useful in MOS:INFOBOX-related disputes; that's come to separate WP:RFARBs, twice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way would that incident not have been resolveable with a regular administrative warning or a normal noticeboard action? "There was a problem" doesn't equate to "There was a problem that required DS". Editwarring is already covered by WP:Editwarring policy and has its own noticeboard at WP:ANEW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Since 2 Arbs are requesting more input, I've placed neutral notices about this request at the main AT and MoS talk pages. That'll probably be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disruption hasn't decreased in this area of DS, because the DS are almost never actually deployed, and when they are it's not toward the actions that are most disruptive. Rather, AT/MoS disruption has gone down naturally as these policies/guidelines and their interpretation and application have stabilized, same as with the rest of our WP:P&G system, plus a more conventionalized approach to dispute resolution today than we had a decade ago. (Anyone remember how "useful" WP:RFC/U was? Ha ha.) Another factor is the smaller and more committed editorial base we have now versus in the first 5–10 years, when it was kind of a torrent of short-term people, mostly from SlashDot, and the entire project had kind of a "this is a crazy open development experiment for geeks" feel to it.  The average editor today is more likely to be a writer, an academic, a grad student, a blogger, rather than a computer nerd whose main hobby, aside from fragging strangers in combative videogames, is arguing for sport on webboards.  The nature of the place has shifted, as would be expected; we're long out of the early-adopter, wild-and-wooly phase. The chilling effect isn't a chill on disruption. The ARBATC DS are virtually never applied to anyone who shows up to AT or MoS and starts being disruptive; regulars at those pages are more likely to be subjected to boomerang sanctions for daring to complain about the disrupters.  This is one reason we virtually never bring RFARB, ARCA, or AE actions against anyone (another is that the regulars at the pages aren't battlegrounders, but shepherds; we're averse to drama, and we seek stability and smooth sailing, even if we don't all agree on things.)  The chilling effect is on general participation.  People used to engage much more often, and more broadly from throughout the editorial pool, at these pages, but DS immediately cast a pall and it's never dissipated.  I go out of my way to draw broader attention (e.g. at WP:VPPOL) to MOS/AT/NC/DAB-related RfCs, but overall the participation in them is markedly lower today than in 2012 when the DS were implemented, even if you account for the smaller overall editorial pool.  The minor bits of disruption we've seen and where DS were applied (at least in the abstract, i.e. warnings) were all blips that could have be dealt with at ANI or ANEW or with a DS-unrelated civility warning. Meanwhile, the two actually severe bouts of disruption (which I mentioned already) happened after the DS. The DS were not used to prevent the problems; the community resolved the first on its own; and the second dragged on until the situation became so intolerable that someone did finally try using AE, long after much of the damage was done, and then it just turned into three years of additional drama. The only thing like this that happened before the DS was the date auto-linking and auto-formatting squabbles, which were not the ARBATC issue, but handled in an earlier RFARB, WP:ARBDATE – and handled without DS.
 * Boomerang: The ANEW that was reversed onto me then overturned at AN  is an obvious case. (The reported editor is the one who was not long after T-banned (largely on the same evidence as presented at ANEW) then indeffed and who's been the broken record at appeal after appeal). The most egregious example was probably when an AE request was opened regarding an editor who'd just been at ANI for the same sort of AT-related disruption, right on the heels of a highly critical RFC/U. Various AT/RM regulars were critical of this editor, based on previously provided evidence, and not in WP:NPA-raising terms. As retribution, the editor opened an AE immediately below the one open about him, to go after his AT critics. Rather than listen to this plurality of editors, AE admins refused to accept the fact that evidence against the problem editor had been supplied in spades at ANI and RFC/U, and instead jumped all over the whole lot (except the subject of the original report, of course). It's two back-to-back threads, at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129 and the one immediately above it. Unsurprisingly, the problem editor was very soon after dealt with at ANI. (I'm avoiding mentioning the name of the other editor, per Newyorkbrad, since they were subjected to a long-term block and may no longer be active.) Yet another case where ANI gets it right and DS/AE just end up being a BUREAUCRACY/WIKILAWYER/GAMING farm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please read it again. From the close: "It is clear that this topic ban did not have the support of the community, and it is only procedural delay that let the discussion continue so long." That bears no resemblance to your summary. The central issue was that the ban-issuing admin refused to offer any justification or clarification – at AN, at my talk page, at his own talk page, anywhere – despite multiple editors and other admins requesting those rationales, and despite that admin being actively editing the entire time. It wasn't an oversight, it was a patent refusal. This was obviously grounds for a WP:ADMINACCT case at ArbCom against the admin in question (especially since it followed on a previous very similar misuse of ARBATC DS by the same admin, applying it to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves which is outside ARBATC's scope, and to only one side of the dispute that was active there). I chose not to file an RFARB, or to even appeal the T-ban until near its end, simply because I'm averse to WP:DRAMA and I wanted to make the point that the T-ban was objectionable on its own lack-of-merits not because I was personally unhappy or "chomping at the bit", or out for "revenge". The perhaps predictable devolution of this ARCA into "find some way to point the finger at the ARCA request even after AN concluded in the other direction, and even though this ARCA is about DS and the topic area not this editor in particular" actually serves to highlight what's wrong with DS in this area in the first place.  It's disappointing to encounter what looks like an implication that I must have some kind of nefarious motive in questioning DS's application to AT/MOS. This isn't about me (I haven't had a  issue with ARBATC DS in years).  What happed to AGF, and ARBATC's own instructions to not personalize style disputes? :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I chose to focus in the appeal on whether the remedy was needed; as you well know, that's virtually the only way to get a sanction lifted, ever. It's "wikisuicidal" to focus on whether one was just/correct. The fact that several AN respondents also focused on this is meaningless except as an indicator of what is typical at ANs.  You asked for an example and I provided one, of an admin mis-applying DS one-sidedly (shutting down a legit ANEW request the intent of which was to stop someone disrupting two RfCs back-to-back), who then stubbornly refused to do WP:ADMINACCT for two months, and whose "discretion" was reversed by AN. If AE's collective assessment of largely the same evidence against the same reported user concluded in favor of a T-ban then a block, but the lone admin came to the nearly opposite conclusion, the latter was clearly a misapplication of DS and of admin authority generally. It's also a principle here that we don't supervote and second-guess a closer's decision years after the fact; if you had an issue with the AN closer's consensus rede, you should have raised that in 2015.  More importantly for this ARCA rationale the huge drama pile over the last three years, surrounding that reported editor, might even have been avoided if that ANEW has proceeded as normal; if similar behavior had popped up again, ANI would have dealt with it swiftly and cleanly. The misuse of DS to thwart standard DR process directly enabled continued long-term disruptive editing by that party.  The DS had the diametric opposite of the intended effect.  All that aside, I also provided a more important, broader, second example, which you ignored, despite it showing ARBATC DS to have been problematic since the start.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, all of WP should be covered by DS, since there is recurrent dispute about virtually every topic. Let's reverse this: Can you or anyone else provide even a single example of ARBATC DS being applied, to a situation in which a) there were no grounds for an administrative warning (e.g for EW or DE) absent the DS, or b) there were no grounds for a noticeboard action (ANI, ANEW, NORN, etc.), only for DS and AE? If not, then the DS are not serving a purpose here since standard remedies suffice.  Combine that with the  of DS and AE to actually deal effectively with a long-term disrupter when that route was actually attempted in good faith.  This ARCA is obviously going nowhere, so I'll just drop it and wait for another ArbCom. The passage of time, the collection of further evidence of mis-application and of failure of DS to work in this area, and simple cycling out of some committee members seems likely to be necessary to get the nebulously menaching fog lifted off these policypages. DS never should have been applied to this in the first place, given that the rationale for it was just a petty four-editor squabble that would have resolved itself soon enough anyway.  ARBATC#Discretionary_sanctions was an over-reaction.  By current standards, DS would not have been applied in that case. The reluctance of ArbCom today to impose DS doesn't square with its simultaneous reluctance to un-impose old DS where DS would not have been imposed today.  And the fact that ARBATC DS have been invoked for warnings twice in  is trivial, in no way suggestive that DS works in this area. This is basically magical thinking.  "It rained last night, after I prayed to the rain gods, ergo prayer works."  I've offered far more plausible explanations above why AT/MoS see less dispute today than they did in 2011.
 * I've already addressed all that; that party's T-ban, I-ban, and perhaps an indef if necessary would have all happened under ANI, far more expediently than the ridiculous amount of AE litigation that was required. DS / AE were not needed to arrive at remedies, but were a drawn-out impediment to doing so – pretty much the least useful approach we could contemplate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I find this an odd request, given that within the last month had an appeal of their topic ban placed under these discretionary sanctions declined, a one-way I bad against Smccandlish (the nominator here) added to that topic ban, and a short block for breaching the topic ban during the appeal imposed. They were indeffed by NeilN later the same day for breaching their topic ban on their talk page. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive235 and user talk:Darkfrog24. Given this very recent history (7 June) of ATC discretionary sanctions being actively used, I would be inclined to say that they are currently still needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
I believe that the discretionary sanctions are particularly important on MOS pages, which by the subjective nature of the content are more prone to personal arguments than many other pages. I wanted to post a few links in particular, which may or may not be informative about the continuing benefit of DS. From a MOS-related RFC in December:, from earlier this week  ("childish"), and from today. This is the tone with discretionary sanctions in effect.

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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


 * Quick note about the DS notifications given prior to alerts being a thing: WP:AC/DS directs the clerks to keep the notifications on the main case pages ("Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs."). It's true that some portion of the work from implementing the DS procedure changes remains on the clerks' to-do list, but this is not one of them. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I raised the idea of rescinding discretionary sanctions in several areas on the arb list very recently, but this wasn’t one of the areas I was looking at. I’m open to being convinced, but I’ve seen how high the passions run in this area, and I’ll need to be convinced the discretionary sanctions are a net negative in the area. Awaiting more statements. (As a procedural aside, you don’t need “standing” to appeal a remedy or sanction affecting pages. Any editor can do that.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you comment specifically on why you don't feel disruption has decreased in this area because of the discretionary sanctions? You state they have no positive effect, but you also state they have somewhat of a chilling effect. A chilling effect on disruption is essentially the intent behind discretionary sanctions, and I wouldn't want to revoke discretionary sanctions if they're the reason we've seen less frequent issues in this area. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have a couple links to those boomerang results you mention. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't read the AN thread that resulted in your topic ban being lifted as saying that the ban was incorrect. I read it as saying that the ban was no longer necessary. This is also reflected in what you yourself wrote in the first couple lines of that request, stating the ban was no longer necessary because the underlying dispute had died down. In any event, if the only examples of potentially problematic enforcement are from 2015, I don't find that very convincing. Enforcement has evolved quite a bit since then. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the discussion, not the closing summary. In total, four editors supported lifting the ban. Of those, none said the ban was inappropriate. They focused more on the fact it was no longer serving a purpose (or was vague/poorly defined). It's somewhat unclear the topic ban even should have been lifted, since four editors supporting and two opposing do not usually form a "clear and substantial consensus" required to lift a discretionary sanction. This has nothing to do with the fact that you (as the ARCA filer) were the subject of that ban and everything to do with whether enforcement in this area has been poor. I asked for examples of poor enforcement, and you offered that one up. You shouldn't find it shocking that I looked into it. No-one has stated you have any "nefarious motive" here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not in favour of removing this set of discretionary sanctions. This is an area where passions run very high and disputes are relatively commonplace. In fact, just last month I alerted and warned a few editors who were edit warring on a MOS page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that discretionary sanctions didn't need to be used is a good thing. The knowledge that discretionary sanctions are in force and that an administrator is willing to use them is, in many instances, enough to make editors stop. I'd also note that these discretionary sanctions have already been used against two different editors for two different reasons this year (in my case to calm a situation and as an alternative to a block). My opinion is pretty clear here, if discretionary sanctions have been authorised by the committee they should not be removed unless there is no longer conflict in the subject area and it's not likely to return in the short term. This topic area, from what I've looked at, doesn't meet either criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with my colleagues above. From my observations they are still necessary. Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more input from editors active on the relevant pages. (But unless really necessary, let's avoid discussing editors who are now banned and can't defend themselves.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the information above, and I will agree with my colleagues as well that these sanctions are still needed at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything my colleagues have said above. I'm happy to clear out the cobwebs on disused sanctions - but these are being used, even if rarely, and it doesn't sound like the underlying disputes have really stopped happening. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear more comments from the community and editors who work in this area. So far not a lot of outside feedback for or against the continuation of these DS. Mkdw  talk 18:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that the sanctions are still of use, per the above commentary. Like Mkdw I wish there was more feedback from others in the area, but lacking that I'm prepared to decline this right now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really wish we had more input from affected editors but it's obvious there's recent conflict in this area. I believe they're still necessary. Katietalk 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)