From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAr)
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Case affected 
Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Finding 4
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Finding 4 cites "letter and spirit of bot policy" (without, of course, quoting the policy) and gives four alleged examples, apparently supported by links.

  1. running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([1]),
  2. running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([2])
  3. running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([3]),
  4. running unapproved bot tasks ([4]).

Taking these in order:

  1. There is no bot policy that says that high speed manual tasks need approval. In fact current WP:BOTPOL specifically says Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
  2. There is no bot policy that says that high volume manual tasks need approval. That would be absurd. People like the late lamented User:JimCubb who did such sterling work on the WP:Listas problem, our spelling fixers, like John of Reading, our stub-sorters like PamD, these are all working within policy, as indeed was I. The diff supposedly supporting this is just the opinion of CBM.
  3. It is not the case that a task that is permitted automatically is prohibited manually. CBM has often stated that this is policy, but I have never seen this piece of folklore anywhere else than in this case and in comments by CBM.
  4. It is a generally accepted principle that bots using AWB may perform "general fixes" at the same time. These are built-in to AWB and are carefully selected by the developers to be non-controversial and robust. One admin took exception to one of these fixes against consensus, and repeatedly blocked the bot. You can even see CBM confirming that he his happy with all the "general fixes" except the WP:IDONTLIKEIT change.
One line summary

Three of the four examples are clearly within policy. The fourth is within standard usage, and even so I went to great lengths to oblige CBM.

I have attempted to keep this short, so may have omitted something you think important. Please feel free to ask any questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I am happy to answer questions of opinion or fact, or even motivation.

Worm That Turned@ I have specifically focussed this requested amendment on facts, rather than opinion. The fact is that, whether there were issues with my editing or not, a matter I am quite happy to discuss, this finding blatantly misrepresents the Bot Policy of the time.
There is plenty more to damn this finding, for example the most recent evidence cited for 1) was 18 months old, for 3) was 2 1/2 years old, and for 4) was 2 years old.
Even if this related to, say civility, or copyvio, these would have been out-dated. For BOTPOL, it is far more so, the culture changed between 2009/2010 and 2012, and in response so did the behaviour of bot operators, my tools were re-built from the ground up to address or remove concerns that had been expressed. Moreover I adhered ever more strictly to the BOTPOL, possibly excessively so, for example BRFAs like[this one] were not needed under the exception that allows bots to edit their own subpages, or their owner's sub-pages without BAG approval.
In summary, without even resorting to the broader context, the drafting of a finding like this shows a complete lack of knowledge of the appropriate parts of wiki-culture from 2009-12, a lack of relevance, due to the untimely nature of the so-called "supporting evidence", and a complete failure to read or understand WP:BOTPOL. Continuing to support it when these flaws have been pointed out would be morally bankrupt.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

From those Arbitrators who have already commented, I would like to hear one compelling reason that lies about a living person are more acceptable on arbitration pages than on articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Rich Farmbrough: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Rich, you're a good editor. You have a lot to give to the encyclopedia. However, I've spent too much time looking over this case over the past 2 years as an arbitrator. Quite simply, I agree with the outcome at the time. Roger Davies, you and I sat down and discussed the topic ban at Wikimania and it seems that nothing has changed since then. I've read over your request and don't agree that this remedy should be vacated - your automated editing was causing significant issues at the time. I'm sorry to see that you still don't accept that. Good luck with your other endeavours, Rich - I hope they serve you well. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Rich. Dave has covered the ground here and it pretty much goes without saying that I concur. Best,  Roger Davies talk 18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The vacating of old findings or remedies is unlikely here at this time, per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Per above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There may come a time when this will be best for the project, and I will support then, but these restrictions are needed, per my colleagues. Oppose. AGK [•] 06:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Ayn Rand, Monty Hall problem, Longevity, Cold fusion 2, Tree shaping, Gibraltar

Initiated by User:Rich Farmbrough at 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cases affected 
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Ayn Rand: Remedy 13
  2. Monty Hall problem: Remedy 5
  3. Longevity: Remedy 1
  4. Cold fusion 2: (Remedy 10)
  5. Tree shaping: Remedy 5
  6. Gibraltar: Remedy 9

Amendment 1

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This remedy is stale. The only actions in the 3 years are a warning for disruption in 2013 (which could have been made anyway), and, in January, a 1 month topic ban of a dynamic IP account.

Statement by TParis (Ayn Rand)

There was a severe edit war on Ayn Rand in October 2013. That's recent enough that I think this restriction is still needed as a reminder and as an enforcement tool for sysops in the area.--v/r - TP 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

An IP was subject of an AE block in January, 2014 per the outcome of this WP:AN3 case. The IP is block evasion by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Ayn Rand continues to be controversial so I recommend keeping the discretionary sanctions. Until April 2014 there was still a 1RR/week restriction in effect per the DS, but it was lifted. At present there should not be any continuing need for a 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used, indeed all the time based sanctions are long expired.

Statement by Ningauble

Although this remedy has not been "used" in the limited sense that no editors have been sanctioned under its provisions (as far as I know), the log of notifications shows an instance this year where, in my opinion, the fact of the article being under this sort of probationary status has been used to good effect.

That said, apart from heading off conduct so egregious that it might be sanctionable sooner or later even without provision for special discretion, I am not sure this remedy, or anything else within the committee's remit as generally understood, can do much to improve a situation that continues to see episodes of unproductive discussion. Standards of conduct and decorum are well and good, but do not prevent dancing round and round in circles without improving this formerly featured article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

These stale discretionary sanctions have never been used.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Not evident why discretionary sanctions were threatened years ago. Please strike.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment 4

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Note that this remedy was never invoked.

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

There has been continued disruptive editing, but I agree with User:Gaijin42 that this can rolled up under pseudoscience, as long as it is clear that the intent is only to roll it up, not to strike the remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

This seems like it would be covered by the pseudoscience case. So sure, nuke this one to clean up some record keeping, but it doesn't really change the editing environment for the article/topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Noren

This topic area was subject to enough disruption to require a full case resulting in its own specific sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been put into effect. This was partly because a number of editors were of the opinion that cold fusion does not fall within the scope of pseudoscience (and the argument on that meta-topic was interminable.) If the current, specific ruling that Cold Fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions goes away, I think that a very clear, citeable statement by Arbcom that this topic is subject to sanctions under the pseudoscience umbrella would be necessary to avoid a repeat of this history. --Noren (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough is mistaken that this remedy was never invoked, see for example [5] and [6]. It was made more difficult to find these invocations because the name of the case has been retroactively changed and the logging of enforcement has been moved to merge with the older pseudoscience case.--Noren (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Per a 15 Nov 2012 Arbcom motion, enforcement of Cold Fusion remedies is consolidated with Pseudoscience. This tells admins that problematic editing of Cold Fusion can be processed as though it were an WP:ARBPS violation. It's fine that enforcement was redirected to another case, but if Cold Fusion is dropped then we will be back to square one whenever CF problems occur. So I agree with Noren's advice about this and would oppose removing the Cold Fusion remedy. To understand what the 2012 motion was trying to do you should read the comments by User:T. Canens at the bottom of the discussion section, below the votes. It seems that cold fusion and homeopathy were both rolled into pseudoscience. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 5

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Note that this remedy was never invoked apart form two warnings in 2011.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 6

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This remedy is stale, no action has been taken since 2011.

Statement by Thryduulf

I issued a 0RR restriction on Operation Flavius for an editor in February this year. I did this under the WP:TROUBLES case, but I could equally have used the DS authorised for the Gibraltar topic area instead (the article is about a military action against IRA members on Gibraltar). Obviously if DS had been repealed for Gibraltar then I could still have issued this sanction under The Troubles. I don't remember at this distance whether the focus of this editor was Gibraltar or The Troubles though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

The proliferation of areas under discretionary sanctions (in addition to other forms of sanction) makes editing Wikipedia both more complex and trouble prone for all editors, but especially new editors. It makes sense to remove obsolete sanctions, and obsolete notices (indeed I removed obsolete notices from 56 of the 136 articles listed under "Community probation" only the other day).

None of these areas seem to have been significantly troubled since the case, and certainly not in a way where DS would be required to resolve them.

I would hope that none of these requested amendments would be controversial, but if one or more are I would welcome as an alternative, suspension of those sanctions for a year, with a view to striking them.

@Timotheus Canens: I certainly never implied that Pseudo-science sanction should have an exemption for cold fusion. I would be interested to know where you got such an idea. In this case we simply do not need any special note about it, its standing is simply as part of pseudo-science.

Comments by Thryduulf

I have left a message on the main article talk pages for these topic areas (Talk:Ayn Rand, Talk:Monty Hall problem, Talk:Longevity, Talk:Tree shaping and Talk:Gibraltar) advising editors there of this amendment request and asking for any comments about the proposal to be left here. I haven't left messages on any deeper pages (e.g. Talk:History of Gibraltar) as I don't know how to define the set of which pages have the DS template on that are relevant to these cases, and I'd be here all day if I tried to do that manually. Anyone else is of course free to do so.

I suggest waiting a few days to allow for any such comments before actioning (or not) these amendments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If the cold fusion topic area is removed from the scope of the pseudoscience DS authorisation, then this should be explicitly noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions as well as on the Cold Fusion 2 case page. I also note that the pseudoscience DS are authorised for "articles" rather than "pages", arbitrators may wish to consider amending that similarly to the motion last month.

And, off topic for this request but while I'm here, I asked for clarification of a BASC decision the other day at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Cookiecutteramaru's topic ban (where the BASC decision page told me to ask), but this appears to have slipped under the radar. Thryduulf (talk)

Statement by Carrite

This request is such a mess that I don't even know where to put my comment... This entire request should be thrown out as out of process. This combines a huge variety of unrelated cases, effectively massing a herd of buffalo, making examination of each individual specimen impractical. For example, I don't think the Gibraltar remedies should be altered or softened at all. What does that have to do with the Monty Hall case? Just toss this entire request and let the proposer start over, one at a time, if there is an actual need for such alterations (which I doubt). Carrite (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken: premise fundamentally flawed

I think the premise of this amendment request is fundamentally flawed. Remedies don't necessarily lose value because they're not actively invoked. That's all that has been researched below by Beeblebrox, whether they were actively invoked. I'm not too familiar with any of the ArbCom cases touched by this list of amendment proposals. I'm more familiar with e.g. the two Prem Rawat Arbcom cases: my experience there is that one doesn't have to invoke a remedy explicitly to demonstrate its value. Example, undoing this edit part of my edit summary read " templates on top of the talk page too, please", referring to the sensitivity of the topic in general, without naming any ArbCom case or remedy in particular.

I'm convinced that toning down the remedies has no advantage: when editors behave reasonably with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind such remedies are not bothering anyone either.

At least a possibility to re-instate remedies easily if this proves necessesary needs to be built in in the amendment proposal.

Further I want to remark to ArbCom members you'd be sanctioning one of Rich Farmbrough's "mass" operations here, specifically what should still be a red flag, see #Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ayn Rand, Monty Hall problem, Longevity, Cold fusion 2, Tree shaping, Gibraltar: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I remember (some in more detail than others) the arbitration cases that led to discretionary sanctions being authorized in these areas. Basically, we authorize DS in a topic-area where there has been disruptive editing by several (not just one or two) editors in a topic-area, and there is a likelihood of continued disruptive editing in the future. I accept, without having checked, Rich's statement that these topic-areas have not been edited disruptively for some time. The question then is, is that likely to continue if we lift the DS. In some areas it probably is, if the specific editors who were editing problematically have moved on (and no one has replaced them in that regard), or if the real-world cause of editing disputes on an article has disappeared (although I don't think that would apply here). I would certainly be open to lifting DS on a topic-area if the active editors in the topic-area told us that they thought DS was no longer necessary and was dampening the editing environment. I'm not as sure whether we want to adopt a presumption of "if DS were authorized awhile ago and the topic is calm now, we will lift the DS based on the passage of time as a housekeeping matter." I ask my colleagues who were active in the DS review a couple of months ago if this issue was discussed then and in any event what their thoughts are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The relevant principle was briefly discussed here and then added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Authorisation, which now reads [w]hen it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. I'd say this is the case here and would support a motion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, if disruptive behavior has settled down in an area and is not likely to resume, I'm in favor of removing discretionary sanctions from them. There are some areas that will probably always remain "hot" and there's little likelihood of that happening, but in these, it looks like things have cooled off quite a lot. We could always leave open the possibility of restoring sanctions by motion if significant disruption resumes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree that it is not desirable to have sanctions in place when there have been no recent problems and would likely support motions to remove them from these areas once we have confirmed Rich's findings. (Not saying I don't believe him, it's just best practice to double-check such things). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on Beeblebrox's #Analysis, I would support a motion to de-authorise discretionary sanctions for these topic areas. AGK [•] 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also support such a motion. Thank you Beeblebrox for that analysis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Pseudoscience and fringe science except cold fusion" as a discretionary sanctions area makes little sense, so I'm opposed to carving out a special exemption for CF. I'm open to a motion lifting the remainder per Beeblebrox's analysis. T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with my colleagues. Unless someone else beats to me, I'll draft a motion wrapping up he various loose ends on this tomorrow. Thanks to Rich Farmbrough for bringing this to us. And it's good to see the obsolescence provision in the new DS procedure been used properly.  Roger Davies talk 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As per above, Thryduulf has posted about this request on the talkpages of the lead articles in the various topic-areas, to give the editors and admins active in the topics notice that this is being considered. (I thank him for doing so.) We might just want to wait a few more days before voting on a motion to see if we get any further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


I am adding this section for point-by-point analysis of each request, this should help inform how we proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Ayn Rand
Arb enforcement actions
3 users blocked in 2009, 1 in 2013, 1 January of this year
Article placed under 1RR from October 2013 to April this year
Recent article history
On the main article on Rand herself: minor editorial conflicts continue, nothing recent beyond what one would expect in an article on such a polarizing figure, nothing particularly nasty on talk page, seems fairly civil
The articles on objectivism and her novels seem fairly quiet
  • Monty Hall Problem
Arb enforcement actions
1 user blocked in 2011, 1IP used by that same user blocked in 2012
Recent article history
minor editorial disputes continue, there was a recent discussion the talk page last month that turned more personal than it should have, but the article itself is not experiencing serious disruption.
  • Longevity
Arb enforcement actions
Numerous warnings handed out right after the case closed n 2011, one user blocked for violating their topic ban, DS appears to have never been invoked
Recent article history
Main article appears free of conflict. No substantive discussion on talk page between announcement of DS in 2011 and a note directing users to this request a few days ago
Checked several related articles, some subject to simple vandalism, no serious editorial disputes
  • Cold fusion 2
Arb enforcement actions
Numerous blocks in 2011, all of the same user who was subsequently community banned that same year
Please note this sanction was already Superseded by motion, 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. So the discussion is not whether we should vacate the original sanction but rather whether it should be removed from the umbrella of the pseudoscience DS.
However, there do not appear to be any notes in the enforcement logs that directly relate to cold fusion.
Recent article history
Talk page is quite active (47 archives!) but discussion is mostly civil and the article itself is fairly stable and free of major editorial disputes
  • Tree shaping
Arb enforcement actions
Three warnings in 2011, no blocks or bans
Recent article history
Pleasantly surprised to see that several users subject to now-expired individual sanctions in the original case having civil, collaborative discussions on talk page, no serious disruption of article content for some time.
  • Gibraltar
Arb enforcement actions
Several warnings and individual sanctions applied in 2010-2011, all long since expired
no logged blocks or bans
Note that this is one of the decisions whose wording was modified by the committee last month, though that should not have any impact on the matter in front of us today
Recent article history
Main article and talk page appear free of prolonged, tendentious disputes, nothing beyond what one would expect for any article on a country
The entire history of an oft-disputed territory, broadly construed is an awful lot of material. Checked a sample of related pages and found no significant disruption of content.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
  1.  Roger Davies talk 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've copyedited the motion to bring in the Homeopathy case, which is in the same position as Cold Fusion 2 and aded a change in wording for the Pseudoscience remedy ("articles" to "pages") for consistency with everything else. I also made a small change to the preamble. Thanks to Tim for pointing these out. Please revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. And thanks for adding point #8, i think that's a fine idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. It's #9 now, with Brad's changes.  Roger Davies talk 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Let's get rid of this cruft, it's no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. I have taken the liberty of adding the second sentence of #7, and a new #8 (old #8 becomes #9). Any arbitrator can revert if these changes aren't desired, but if there is consensus for them, I think this is easier than adding another motion. I also made a minor copyedit to #4, and copyedited the introductory clause so it will be independently comprehensible when the motion is posted to the noticeboards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. AGK [•] 06:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  9. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  10. LFaraone 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gun control

Initiated by Gaijin42 (talk) at 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by Gaijin42

During the GC case I was topic banned from Gun Control. I am currently involved in editing King v. Burwell an upcoming supreme court case regarding Obamacare. One of the issues in the case is Commandeering (The limitations on the Federal government being able to force states to implement policies/laws). The Commandeering doctrine was most recently decided and expanded upon in Printz v. United States a SCOTUS gun control case dealing with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The Commandeering article is currently very stubby, I would like to expand it, but doing so will likely require discussing/referencing Printz. Note that the concept of commandeering itself is not related to gun control, merely the most recent major SCOTUS discussion of commandeering happened to be in a gun control case. I can avoid discussing the direct gun control issues, but this still seems on the edge of my ban.

I would like to ask for clarification on where the line of my ban is drawn, and if referencing the generic precedents set in Printz is a violation of my ban. If I were to expand the Commandeering article, would citing/quoting Printz be a violation.

Clarifying Note : Due to the appeal restrictions placed on the case, I am ONLY asking for clarification, and not asking for a modification of the ban. (because I'm still within the initial 12 month "no appeal" period, and in any case do not want to risk resetting my clock) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Appeal_of_topic_bans

David FuchsRoger DaviesNativeForeigner I appreciate the opinions of the arbs. My (obviously self-interested) position was that it wasn't really a grey area, just a technicality, because the subject of commandeering is not really about gun control. An analogous situation would be someone who is topic banned from rape not being able to edit on the Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution or Miranda warning because Miranda_v._Arizona happened to be about a rape conviction. As to Roger's specific question, I obviously would not have a basis for accusing anyone of violating their ban, since doing so would be a violation of my own ban, but joking aside, no I don't think such an accusation would have merit, and such construction makes topic bans exceptionally broad. Especially in an area regarding law and government the interactions and tendrils between entities and events is immense. If commandeering is a grey area/violation, conceivably any interaction with any aspect of the government would be. Are the entirety of articles such as Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein BLPs or the entire United States Congress and United States Constitution also off limits? They certainly fall into "the people and organizations associated with these issues" per the ban.

However, in the interest of staying in good graces (or at least not getting in worse graces) I will probably avoid as advised, but would appreciate a further answer/comment as to the broadness of bans in general per my question just above. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

I should probably make it clear that I was heavily involved in the ArbCom case that led to Gaijin42's topic ban, and my comments should perhaps be seen in that light, but I have to suggest that Gaijin42 has answered his own question - Printz v. United States clearly and unambiguously involves gun control issues, and if expansion of the Commandeering article requires citing Printz v. United States, I cannot see how he could make such a citation without violating the ban. One does not (or should not) merely cite things in articles, one cites them for a reason, and I cannot see how Printz v. United States could appropriately be cited without at least informing the readers what the case was about - the constitutionality or otherwise of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd steer clear, if only to make sure no issues arise. It may be possible to edit it whilst staying clear, but I do not advise trying it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest steering clear too. A reasonable test for you is asking whether, if a topic-banned opponent in the gun control area, were to edit the same article you are thinking of editing, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit. (With grateful thanks to Alanyst for articulating so clearly the advice on which my comment here is based.)  Roger Davies talk 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with my colleagues above. We generally craft remedies broadly to avoid these sorts of grey areas where it can be argued bias is still possible; Roger's flipping exercise is the standard I usually hold as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The proposed edit would violate the topic ban. It is good that you asked. If you are in doubt in the future, do please ask again, though it should be clearer now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions

Initiated by Fut.Perf. at 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:AC/DS#Continuity

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Just noticed this trivial clerical oversight in the wording of the current DS rules. In the "WP:AC/DS#Continuity" section, there is the the rule that old warnings are grandfathered in until "twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure" – but nowhere on the page does it say when that date actually was (3 May 2014, apparently), nor is there an actual link to the decision anywhere, and it took me ages just now to dig that bloody link out [7]. Just add a reference to that date there, and a link to decision in the refs section at the bottom, because it will remain important for admins in figuring out the "alert" status of editors for the next half year to come.

Of course, if Arbcom pages weren't such a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy, I could just go ahead and make this simple, uncontroversial clerical correction myself (heck, per IAR, I guess I'll just do it anyway [8]), but since on prior attempts arbitrators have ever so gracefully insisted on the untouchableness of their little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom [9], you asked for ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake, you get ridiculous procedure for procedure's sake. Have fun voting on this. Fut.Perf. 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

  • Bravo. Brevity. Soul. Wit. --DHeyward (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pine

Objection: Worm That Turned is violating the MoS with his support statement, and Seraphimblade's citation should be more precise. (In all seriousness, good catch.) --Pine 08:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If this really were a ridiculous jungle of bureaucracy and an untouchable little home-made bureaucratic fiefdom, I would vote to deny this request on the ground that it has been improperly posted at the bottom rather than the top of the clarifications-and-amendments section. (Everyone knows that new requests go at the top rather than the bottom of the section, right?) But since the arbitration pages in reality are and always have been governed by the spirit of collaboration, good judgment, and above all common sense and proportionality in all things, I will instead say that I have no problem with this suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wot NYB sed. WormTT(talk) 08:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I move that we initiate proceedings under Rule 34.1, subpart J-5, in order to convene a subcommittee to schedule an impact analysis for the proposed modification. (In all seriousness, though, good catch and thanks for fixing it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Seraphimblade. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Seraphimblade. AGK [•] 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Make it so. NativeForeigner Talk 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good catch,  Roger Davies talk 16:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If any other similar clerical fixes are noticed by Future Perfect at Sunrise or anyone else, please make corrections and leave a note either with the clerks or at a suitable arbitration talk page. No need to raise to the level of a full clarification as done here (though I appreciate the not-so-subtle point you were making). Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Initiated by Xenophrenic (talk) at 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 7.1 (topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed)
  2. Remedy 7.2 (prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect anywhere on Wikipedia)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Collect (diff of notification of this thread on Collect's talk page)
Information about amendment request

Statement by Xenophrenic

The Arbitration Committee imposed upon me a topic ban and a one-way interaction ban on 5 September 2013, with instructions that I may appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. Now that 14 months have passed, I am requesting that the bans be lifted as no longer necessary, and an undue burden. The "Finding of Fact" about me indicates the Arbs perceived some problems with my Talk page interaction with other Wikipedia editors. I "personalized" the discussions by stubbornly demanding that editors substantiate certain negative personal comments about me, even to the point of "edit warring over comments that negatively portray" me, and "thereby further increasing tension" as I repeatedly deleted those comments and replaced them with {{rpa}} templates. I agree that my conduct was substandard. I have since grown thicker skin and changed the way I respond to those situations -- with the best response often being for me to just ignore it and get back to collaborative editing. I apologize to the Arbs, the clerks and the community for their wasted time and energy due to my part in this matter, and extend my assurance that I won't repeat that conduct. With regard to User:Collect, I "engaged in unnecessary mockery" of his use of Cheers by responding with Where everybody knows your name. I've ceased that response as well, but more to the larger point, I have and will continue to refrain from unnecessary mockery of editors. And Collect: Please accept my apology.

In addition to being no longer necessary, these two remedies are becoming increasingly burdensome. I frequently find myself having to play Six Broadly Construed Degrees of Separation whenever I see the words 'Tea' and 'Party' somewhere in an article I wish to edit or discuss. (Example: while typing a question to Newyorkbrad in response to his comment, I discovered he was talking about a lawsuit drafted by a Tea Party activist, so I had to hold my tongue, lest someone twist that into a topic ban violation.) See this discussion for an example of how reasonable people can completely disagree on what is "related to" the Tea Party; there are 1000s of articles linked to Tea Party. It is cumbersome to "not interact with" an editor after they revert your edits and open a Request for Comment(RfC) on those very edits, while still trying to communicate on the Talk page. More examples upon request.

I'm up against the word-limit now, but if there are any reservations about lifting the sanctions, I can strengthen my request by providing details on:

  • (Good behavior) -how every editor sanctioned in this ArbCom case 14 months ago, except me (and Snowded), has since received additional Blocks, Bans, ArbCom sanctions, or violated existing sanctions
  • (Topic relevance) -how the FoF evidence for me described an editor-interaction problem not specifically related to the TPm "topic" or subject matter, unlike many of the other FoFs describing problems related to topic content, sources and POV

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I'll leave you with these wise words on I-BANs, with which I happen to agree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First - this is a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other.
  • Response to Collect: Either I was unclear, or you have misunderstood. I make no complaint against you here; I have no issue with you here. To the contrary, for more than 14 months there has been only productive discourse whenever you and I have crossed paths at noticeboards and Talk pages. I only provided diffs to the Infobox RfC example above to illustrate the contortions I must go through in order to respond to your direct interaction with me while "not interacting with you". It would be so much easier to just converse normally with you, rather than talk past you while pretending you aren't part of the discussion, as I try to convey my thoughts to you within the constraints of a one-way I-Ban. Given that I am already constrained by Wikipedia's policies on civility and collaboration, and you now have my assurance I won't transgress again, and you can rest assured that repeated transgression will likely result in doubly swift and harsh penalties, what utility do you see in maintaining the I-Ban?
  • Response to Thargor Orlando: Thank you, um... I think? I agree with you on your two points: my edits weren't "problematic the way other editors' edits were", and you'll find no evidence that I've "continued that behavior". I agree, and that is why I am now asking to have the sanctions lifted. I must strongly disagree, however, with your assertion that I have not kept away from Tea Party-related articles. Looking at the 5 diffs you provided, the first three articles have no mention of the Tea Party at all. The remaining two articles do briefly mention the Tea Party in sections near the end of the articles, unbeknownst to me, but the subjects of those articles are the farthest thing from "related to" the Tea Party. And there was no obvious indication that I should search for TP references buried in those two biographies while I was rapidly making minor tweaks to infobox templates in a batch of biographies. Had I known that the words "Tea Party" existed in those two articles, I most certainly would have requested clarification here, as I have in the past. Your examples perfectly highlight my point that reasonable people can disagree on what is "related to" Tea Party articles, and the burden such a topic ban imposes.
  • Thargor Orlando, why must it be either/or? I believe ArbCom wanted both (to keep me away from Tea Party content and that I demonstrate non-disruptive interaction), and I have conducted myself accordingly. I still frequent contentious subject matter involving politics, religion, war, conspiracy — all the hot spots — but without incident over 14 months. I also feel I have exercised an abundance of caution in avoiding TPm-related content. I can't count how many articles and discussions I've avoided because of the topic ban, and I've even refrained from pestering the Committee with what could have been almost daily clarification requests, opting instead simply to edit elsewhere. Even in this specific case, where the Arbiter who authored the topic ban (who better knows its intent?) gave me the green light to continue editing an article containing "Tea Party" text, I opted to take onboard the advice of others and ceased editing that article. I believe I've taken proper care in complying with the intent and spirit of the topic ban, your two examples containing Tea Party text notwithstanding.
  • @Seraphimblade: If it will grease the wheels in this process, and satisfy Collect, I can return here in 49 days and resubmit my request to have the I-Ban lifted. I admit I still do not understand the reasoning behind the requested delay, but at this point ... whatever works to bring closure to the matter.

Statement by Collect

I would be fully unaffected by this amendment, as I have no sanctions extant under the Tea Party Movement case. My appeal to Jimbo has met with absolutely no response, but we are well past the six month mark making this amendment request totally moot. The one way interaction ban should be carefully weighed - I have not interacted with Xenophrenic at any point, and would just as soon have him continued to be constrained. Collect (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am, moreover, aghast that the common use in infoboxes to include degrees received is what his major complaint appears to be. There was, in fact, a discussion on the template page, as I trust he is aware, and he appeared to be in full accord with the solution, so I do not know what his issue with me is here. Collect (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to people who note my belief that 1 way bans should be of specified duration - I still hold that view. I do not understand why my position here that the single 1 way ban should not be abrogated at this point is of any dispute, though I would think that making it for a specified period as MastCell notes would not be amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic I would suggest that a "date certain" to end the iban is in accord with my consistent positions on such bans, and think perhaps setting it at 1 January 2015 would not be unduly burdensome. I further note that I have never had any "enemies list" to stalk or make derogatory comments about on Wikipedia, though I will grant some of your older posts did vex me a tad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

My position has always been that 1 way Ibans should have a defined term, at least to the best of my recollection, and the charge of "hypocrisy" is painful. The case presented, however, seeks two distinct and basically unrelated changes to the ArbCom sanctions, thus separating the two seemed to me to be rational. Setting a time certain is rational, but tying it to this request is quite imperfect. One should note that I have, as far as I can tell, been civil to Xenophrenic, and have not made any edits with any intent other than benefitting the project. This would leave the sole issue the actual TPm topic ban, for which I proffer no opinion. Nor did I proffer evidence against any editor in the TPm case, and the "findings" against me were drafted by an Arbitrator using diffs not presented by anyone other than the single arbitrator. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

I brought up the initial clarification before, so I'm commenting to note that, while I haven't had any further encounters with Xenophrenic since then, others certainly have and probably didn't notice that he was under sanction, given that even in the last few months he has edits to sanction-related articles like Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [10], Efforts to impeach Barack Obama [11], United States House of Representatives v. Obama [12], Van Jones [13], and Alan Grayson [14] (and this is using a fairly narrow standard of "broadly construed." If the topic ban is about keeping him from engaging in incivility on these pages, I'm unaware of any evidence that he's continued that behavior. If the topic ban, however, was to keep him away from Tea Party-related articles, he has very clearly not done so. I have no interest in stalking his edits to keep him in line, but the result of this appeal should really be about the intent of the topic ban, especially as his edits, at first glance, do not appear to be problematic the way other editors' edits were. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:, and that's all my point is: if the idea is to keep you away from Tea Party-related articles, and you're not taking the proper care in making sure you're doing so, then this amendment should be denied. If the point was to demonstrate that you can actually be civil and not disruptive with those you disagree with on contentious articles, then I agree with you. It's all about what ArbCom was trying to accomplish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Collect has previously been very vocal and consistent in his belief that one-way interaction bans are unfair and useless:

In light of Collect's vehement opposition to one-way interaction bans, I find his support for continuing such a ban here puzzling. I'm not sure it has any bearing on whether Xenophrenic's interaction ban should be lifted (it probably should, on a trial basis and on the basis of good behavior, particularly as the 1-way ban allows Collect to revert him with impunity). It's more that, having now spent more than 8 years on Wikipedia, my patience with hypocrisy is pretty much depleted and I find it difficult to ignore. MastCell Talk 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Tea Party movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Collect: if I'm understanding you correctly, you would object to the IBAN being lifted at this time, but would not object to ending it as of 1 January? I'm not clear on what difference having it run for an extra month and a half would make? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would grant this petition. AGK [•] 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with both the t-ban and the i-ban going. Perhaps the way forward is that both are suspended immediately and if there are no problem with either by the end of the year, they both expire on 31st December. If there's enthusaism for this, I'll propose a suitably convoluted motion,  Roger Davies talk 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Per above colleagues. NativeForeigner Talk 08:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Banning Policy

Initiated by KonveyorBelt at 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Link to relevant decision


1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned,[40][41] Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.

Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (29 days ago) (UTC−7)

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

Statement by Konveyor Belt

Tarc created a thread about Gamergate here: [16]. Immediately others called for him to be blocked, based on the ruling above. So the request is thus: Does the "normal exceptions" in the remedy above include commenting and posting on subjects that Tarc is directly involved in? KonveyorBelt 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note User:TParis has taken it upon himself to state Tarc will not edit admin noticeboards hereafter: [17]. KonveyorBelt 19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: If Tarc asks the guy to open an ANI or he tells him what to put, is that a PROXYING violation? KonveyorBelt 17:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I was under the impression that "normal exceptions" covered situations such as being invoked by another party ANI, or if I was in need of admin assistance for a situation in which I was already involved. An example of the former would be this filing by a Gamergate SPA, in which I was obliged to defend myself. The latter is a case involving Gamergate controversy; I have been involved there for months, and we have an intractable situation where editors are blatantly abusing Template:POV, and we as regular editors cannot solve it by edit-warring, and discussion has gone on for over a month.

I'd find it hard to imaging that y'all sought to prohibit me from seeking redress for situations where I am extensively understanding was that you wanted me out of admin board-related discussions in which I had no prior hand in to avoid animosity and entanglement and such. Pursuant to that, I declined an invitation (User talk:Tarc#Notice) to participate in a Gamergate AN thread...even though I'm involved in the topic in general, that particular tangent did not involve me. I also decided to stay away from the Gender gap case, even though I had some early involvement in that. Hell, ANI is off the watchlist entirely.

If y'all want to prohibit even the filing of ANI reports when assistance is necessary, then that's your call I guess, but like I said, I honestly did not see that interpretation of the finding at the time. As far as the current ANI goes, obviously I disagree with TParis' restrictive interpretation of the Arbcom finding, but I will refrain from posting further there while this is being discussed here. The important thing is that the subject matter of the filing itself was allowed to continue. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TParis:, it's a fine line, here; I don't agree with the finding that my initiating an ANI discussion violates the Arbcom ruling, but at the same time I do not fault you for hatting the Tutleary-fueled hysterics in the middle and allowing the topic itself to continue.

I do need a clarification here though, as it seems obvious that there are differing interpretations as to what Arbcom said. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, despite that Arbcom talk page thread that meandered nowhere, you never actually clarified anything...until now, apparently. Remember what we're talking about here; a ban from something that had NOTHING TO DO with the actual Arbcom case, so it kinda follows that when something follows from nothing, there will be a distinct lack of clarity on the parameters. If this is what you wish to declare going forward, whatever, but to suggest that your intent was clear beforehand is divorced from reality. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hayward, I hatted it because the suggestions of a GG topic ban by you and Tuletary are so far out of left-field as to be farcical and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here; it isn't even on the table. Arbcom wrote a very muddled ban from "admin noticeboards" except for "normal exceptions"; I sincerely felt that asking for help in a topic I was directly involved in was an exception. If it isn't, fine, we'll all know now going forward. But as evidenced from the ANI thread in question, there is quite a bit of agreement with my point-of-view; several editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate have tried to remove the abused POV tag and ran into the same edit-warring roadblock that I did. My participation in Gamergate has not been disruptive, and you have provided no proof to the contrary. But again, we're not even here to discuss GG itself. This is an absurd distraction, initiated by you. I have nothing else to say on this, if an Arb has a specific question for me, I ask to be pinged; otherwise, this is off my watchlist. Tarc (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to retract that "no more to say" line; it seems that overnight I was vindicated, as far as the specific Gamergate matter goes, Not there was much merit to begin with, but Hayward & Tuletary's catcalls for a GG topic ban have now been rendered moot (this moot not that moot), as the matter I brought to ANI was seen as a problem to remedy and not something that "just creates drama", to quote DH.

Arbs, I apologize for the ANI filing misstep, as I thought that was permissible. I still think it SHOULD be permissible, but that's your call. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

@Tarc: I consider it to be a reasonable compromise. You avoid a block and your thread gets discussed. Works in your favor.--v/r - TP 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

It strikes me as ridiculous that starting a dramatic new thread at AN/I and then commenting on it is a "normal exception" to a topic ban from posting to AN/I. A "normal exception" would be, logically, one having the ability to respond to a thread started about the topic-banned individual at the prohibited page. It is no surprise that the limits of ArbCom's lamentably fuzzy language are being probed after less than a month. Carrite (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Hell in a Bucket}

Unless an admin thinks Tarc was pushing or testing his ban's limits not in good faith I suggest no action. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

It's obvious Tarc sought to amp up the drama on a topic that already has plenty of drama. Any other editor could have raised this at ANI. This was not a productive or time-sensitive report. Indeed, if he had brought it to Jimbo's talk page, the block would have been immediate because it's clear there is no legitimate reason for Tarc to bring drama where drama is not necessary. The appropriate response is a topic ban for Tarc on Gamergate and related articles so that it is very clear he has no business bringing these content issues to a high level of drama. Gamergate is under general sanctions and violating ArbCom sanctions should meet the discretionary sanction threshold. A topic ban also frees up Tarc to continue with more productive areas outside the drama boards and avoids the stigma of punishment blocks. In short, a topic ban solves all the problems related to this. --DHeyward (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc - I am not from a "pro-GamerGate mindset" or whatever that means. Misogyny and Social Justice are terms coined from the various viewpoints related to GamerGate. I advocated a neutral presentation of both as that is the reality. There is no doubt that threats against women in gaming have occurred. There is also doubt that the presentation of women in games has been challenged. Neither viewpoint should be excluded. Your attempts to present one side, and then use ANI to promote a one sided view in violation of your noticeboard ban and the discretionary sanctions for the article should lead to a topic ban. It appears that this topic brings out behavior from you that is unacceptable and the fairest punishment is a topic ban as opposed to a site ban or timed block. Topic ban Tarc and this problem with this editor goes away. --DHeyward (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Tarc must have hatted after his comment about piling on. Note that I've never called for his banning and didn't participate in the arbcom request. I am not calling for a ban here. I don't believe I've edited the gamergate article but have sparingly commented on the talk page. Tarc is a disruptive force on that article and a simple topic ban (not a site ban or full arbcom case) will remove his disruptive influence. This isn't the first time Tarc has been disruptive in controversial areas and the expedient resolution is removing him from the discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc, to quote NYB in many discussions prior to this, "this is at least the third time now that your approach has been to visit the site of a fire in progress and throw gasoline on it."[18] I can't think of a better description of bring the NPOV tag to ANI. It just creates drama. A topic ban for every topic where you do this should be automatic. That's a lot more tolerant than a site ban. I'm sorry you have history that makes your actions appear farcical and baiting but it also makes these remedies appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute @Gamaliel- I could be mistaken but ANI is not listed in the dispute resolution process. WP:DR lists the dispute resolution noticeboards and I'll quote section 4 "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).". The "Are you in the right place?" at ANI also provides other places. ANI is a high stakes/high drama arena needing immediate admin intervention and is often where WP:BOOMERANG is liberally applied to editors that have a history of using it inappropriately. Tarc brought a running 3 month dispute to ANI without any specific incident in direct conflict with his ArbCom sanction not to do that very same thing. The result was exactly what NYB was concerned about: he took the gamergate fire and threw ANI gasoline drama on it. The result of testing that boundary should be the minimum needed to stop it which is a topic ban as the article is under general sanctions as well as his particular arbcom sanction. He is not helping to resolve the dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, I assure you I have received no email nor do I read 8chan nor am I a gamer or anything else. Retract your false allegation uttered by a troll on a troll site. Otherwise, STFU with your personal attacks. I don't even edit the gamergate article. One chance to strike your lie. You're being trolled and you are reacting to it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, reposting is a BLP violation. The irony is that the source you use to falsely accuse me would not be acceptable for you in an article. It's defamatory and your continued flagrant disregard for BLP standards which includes editors is pathetic and transparent. You are the one who reads 8chan and apparently their newsletter. I do not. It's defamatory to attack me personally based one a troll post from a 3rd party site that I am completely unaware of. My name is what I protect and will do so from trolls and their proxies. I did not bring off-site campaigns here. I did not bring Tarc to ArbCom. His history speaks for itself. Your accusations, though are baseless and without merit and a gross BLP violation. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I am not alone in my thinking nor is unsubstantiated or baseless. [19] Jimbo called for a Tarc topic ban if he can't stay away. That's the remedy I proposed. You can remove your accusation at any time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tutelary

It's pretty unambiguous. "Tarc is not allowed to edit administrator noticeboards." How he tried to get away with that explicit wording of ArbCom's restriction and I'll never know, but it's pretty obvious that he violated it--trying to get ArbCom to grant an exception for anything besides relating to the restriction itself is quite obvious of his conduct in the matter. His telling off of DHeyward is also pretty telling, labeling him as a 'Pro GG' and that his opinion should be 'ignored' when he's just another editor like any other. I suspect that even after I make this comment I'll be slurred as 'Pro GG' or some other term he's come up with. If this is how he acts with this topic, then yes, I do believe a topic ban would be necessary. But for the original complaint, it's obvious that he violated it willingly and fragrantly. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute:, read the next part of the line. You and Tarc deliberately took that line out of its context trying to construe it to mean something it doesn't. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. It's not an exception to that criteria. Tutelary (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Resolute

WP:BANEX notes the following as a "normal exception" to a ban such as that which Tarc is involved: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". There is a legitimate dispute that Tarc is legitimately hoping to solve. Based on this, I would consider Tarc's invocation of normal exceptions to start that ANI thread to be good faith, and largely valid. As such, he should not be blocked, but if this is not what Arbcom had in mind when handing down the restriction, now would be the time to clarify it. Resolute 00:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tutelary, I inadvertently missed the next line, but it is interesting to know that you believe you have telepathic skills that allows you to know what others are thinking. That being said, I do believe that if Tarc has the ability to respond to an AN/ANI about him/an issue he is deeply involved with, he should be able to start an AN/ANI for same. Mostly, he needs to stay off Jimbo's talk page and stay out of ANIs that don't really involve him. Resolute 17:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Gamaliel

I'm not familiar enough with Tarc's restrictions to comment on whether or not he violated them in this case. But I think it is inappropriate for involved editors to attempt to use those restrictions to eliminate an editor they perceive as an adversary from an article unrelated to those restrictions. If Tarc's behavior on that article is problematic (and I believe that some of it may be problematic, just as I believe there may be problematic behavior there from the other editors), then the other editors should seek redress through the regular channels of ANI, RFC, etc. and not through an unrelated ArbCom sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

This is a very clear and obvious violation. Tarc is not allowed to edit any administrative noticeboards aside from the normal exceptions. A normal exception would be if they were appealing the sanction or if someone else filed a complaint against Tarc. But this neither an appeal nor a response to a complaint against Tarc. In fact, Tarc initiated a complaint, something that they are not allowed to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by NorthBySouthBaranof

It appears to me that DHeyward doth protest too much. He is correct that the source wouldn't be acceptable in an article, but this isn't an article. The board is demonstrably organizing off-wiki campaigns to attack editors who disagree with their POV. DHeyward's POV on this issue is readily apparent, and there is, at the very least, the untoward appearance that by demanding Tarc be topic-banned, he is obliging a trolling campaign's efforts to silence their opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, I will redact my statements after you redact your wholly-unsupported and baseless statement that Tarc is a "disruptive force on the [Gamergate] article." The only thing Tarc has disrupted on that page is a concerted and months-long effort by fringe POV-pushers to insert BLP-violating false accusations and insinuations about a number of women in the video games industry, to downplay the clear consensus view of their movement as an anonymous band of misogynistic and nihilistic trolls, and to wrap themselves in a shield of disingenuous and nonsensical "but ethics" claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Banning Policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This was discussed during the case. The point of the remedy is to remove Tarc from areas where he is not a positive influence. The normal exceptions apply to the topic ban, i.e. appealing or clarifying the topic ban. Other usage of administrative noticeboards is not currently available to Tarc. WormTT(talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Worm; this was a rather clear-cut violation of the restriction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, for the love of everything that's good and holy, everyone *please* stop sniping at each other. It's most definitely not helping. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above. If Tarc is the subject of an already-started thread or facing sanctions in one, he may defend himself, but opening a thread on an admin noticeboard is off limits. If it really is a serious incident, someone else will bring it up at one of the administrative noticeboards. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that opening a new ANI discussion is not within the scope of the exceptions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not in doubt: the normal exceptions do not provide an excuse here, so the remedy was breached. AGK [•] 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Sandstein

Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user,

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.

It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert.

To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.

Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement.

As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further.

This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...

Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.

Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.

If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Neotarf

This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I spent the past half hour or so reading over the back-story to this request, and perhaps I am in the advanced stages of serving out my last term as an arbitrator, but I really wish I hadn't. Let's back up a step. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, in an environment of collaboration and community among the contributors." The entire administrative apparatus, including "discretionary sanctions" and the arbitration process and the other WP: pages where some of us spend too much of our wikitime, is ancillary to the objectives of Wikipedia that brought us all here. Debating the rules of these administrative processes should not become, in intent or in effect, an end in itself. Put differently, if the bickering about the rule-sets governing administrative processes on Wikipedia has become more complicated than some of the real-world rule-sets that I interpret every day as a litigation attorney, something is wrong. The dispute, or set of disputes, crystalized in this request is so many levels removed from the purpose and objectives of Wikipedia that it is sad. Beyond that, I will leave sorting out the fine points here to my colleagues who were more active in the DS recodification project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
      • What? I do not think it fair to say that anyone in this request is requesting clarification with non-constructive motives. These editors have a legitimate need of a ruling here, and you cannot legitimately refuse to be understanding of that and still expect the project's administrators to do their job. AGK [•] 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.

    On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. AGK [•] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I essentially agree with AGK. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree with AGK. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As do I. WormTT(talk) 08:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do as well but it's frustrating the amount of time I had to spend, back several months ago, to get a solid grasp of how this system works. Brad makes a point: the system is quite complicated, and has become a bit of a self-contained beast. While I was able to pick it up, I'm afraid it would simply be incredibly daunting for any new user to navigate. NativeForeigner Talk 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • AGK summarises things well but makes one key mis-step. He asks that: "I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes." The response by NativeForeigner and NYB show that the estimate of 'five minutes' to update oneself on these changes is a woeful underestimate. What is needed here is some feedback from newer admins on how easy it is to understand the system as it currently stands. It is also incredibly important that ordinary editors, especially those potentially facing sanctions, find the system easy to use. If the system fails that test, then it will be unfit for purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Carcharoth: DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.

    More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Motion for a standing procedure on arbitrator requests for self-assignment of CheckUser or Oversight permissions

Any current member in good standing[a] of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may at any time receive access to the CheckUser and Oversight tools after making a request on the appropriate page, even if the member had not held one or both permissions previously. Such a request is to be considered authorised by the Arbitration Committee, within the scope of AP §1.1(5).

  1. ^ "good standing" is here defined as not suspended and not the subject of a current vote for suspension or removal from the Arbitration Committee, as discussed in AP §1.3.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
  1. As proposer. LFaraone 11:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Personally, I'd add, just to be on the safe side, "after making a request on the appropriate page" and without the need for any further formalities, but yes, this is a sound idea. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    I assume the Stewards would interpret "[…]request is […] authorized by the Arbitration Committee[…]" as "no additional questions or formalities are required. But if there's a way to refactor this to make it more clear, I'm all ears. LFaraone 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Yes, fine. (With a minor tweak from "policy" to "procedure" in the title),  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well, technically we can modify our "internal rules and procedures" (elsewhere called "processes") by motion, but casting this as "policy" speaks to me as something that would require modification to the Arbitration Policy, which is a very different process. LFaraone 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. This has the potential to blow up in spectacular fashion in ways we have not tried to foresee, but I still cannot bring myself to vote against something that will dispense with more of the higher permissions bureaucracy that has creeped in during recent years. AGK [•] 13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
# Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC) switching to oppose, see below
  1. Not sure about this. There are technical reasons why non-administrators cannot access the oversight tool, and I'm similarly not sure about non-administrators on the checkuser tool. That said, if a non-administrator has passed community muster to be elected to arbcom, they should be allowed the administrator flag for the duration of the time on the committee. As such, I cannot support as written - I would support the same with administrator flag (though I don't know how the community would feel about that), but otherwise it's not too onerous to work on a case by case basis. WormTT(talk) 14:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    If there are technical restrictions to the utility of these tools to non-administrator arbitrators, I believe they can be worked around through requesting changes to the rights given by a group to include the minimum rights needed to use the tool. Specifically:
    • Oversight: Grant the delete, deletedhistory, deletedtext, deletelogentryt, undelete, suppressrevision, and viewsuppressed permissions to the Oversight group or create a new group for it.
    • Checkuser: Apart from not being able to block, I'm not convinced a change here would win anything.
    That said, there is a real justification for considering adminship proper for the duration of a non-Administrator, perhaps with AUSC-esque limits that they are discouraged from taking actions unrelated to functionary or committee work. LFaraone 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Definitely not keen on changing Oversight just for this hypothetical (for the time being) usercase. But thanks for the reply, I'll think on the matter. WormTT(talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. I understand why this is proposed and will not be upset if it passes. Routine motions and "paperwork" to approve routine things are annoying, as we were reminded this week. Moreover, if at any time the Arbitration Committee had reservations about one of its members' having the checkuser and/or oversight rights, that would be a bad situation because it would imply reservations about that member's having access to all the other non-public information that the arbitrators are privy to as well. Thus, in voting on candidates, the community should operate on the assumption that the elected arbitrators will receive these permissions on request, and that most of the arbitrators will request them. Nonetheless, although it's a close call, I'm opposing this blanket grant for three reasons. First, it is at least theoretically possible that a future Committee might not want to confer the permissions on each and every arbitrator. Second, we have the uncertainty about whether non-administrator arbitrators could be granted oversight as a technical matter without also being granted adminship (which they should be, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion). And third, it's not 100% clear to me that the stewards would click the button in (say) 2015 to grant CU and OS to a group of newly elected arbitrators whose identity was not yet known to the Committee that passed this motion in 2014. If they require additional confirmations at that time, the result would be greater bureaucracy rather than less. Thus, while I'm open to persuasion, my instinct is to leave things the way they are now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Am opposing this as unnecessary, and also per the concerns raised by Risker, NYB, and others. For both my terms on the Arbitration Committee I took up the CU and OS tools at the start of my terms and handed (will hand) them back at the end of the terms. I didn't use them to take logged actions, but they were there to be used if needed (for checking evidence submissions and to verify logs mainly, but potentially to help with emergency uses and backlogs). Handling things this way is better than the less efficient and more time-wasting method of handing them out to some arbs and not others and then having multiple motions over the following year to approve the grants of the tools to those that didn't take them up at the time. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. I support the spirit of this motion, which was simply intended to eliminate needless process. However, this is a situation that is probably going to be pretty rare (although an arb who is currently in the middle of being suspended suddenly asking for these tools seems like a way, way more rare scenario) and the benefit frankly is not worth the hassle. Thanks for trying, Lafarone. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

Community comments

  • A few thoughts: I'm not sure that a steward who is unfamilar with enwiki politics wants to figure out whether an ArbCom member is in "good standing" or not. It's probably best to just explicitly say "X is granted CU/OS" each year like has been done in the past. Also, this would mean that CU/OS could not be handed out until January 1, which would be a problem if you were planning on handing it out soon after the elections like last year. (Yes, I know I'm being annoying, but stewards have to be careful on enwiki, or they risk being yelled at for their mistake by Wikimedia's largest wiki). --Rschen7754 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • (For clarity, I don't act on enwiki rights requests, as enwiki is a home wiki per the m:Stewards policy). --Rschen7754 06:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the definition in point (a) is unambiguous and easy enough to determine that this won't be a big problem. I am sure that any arb who gets themselves into enough trouble to no longer be "in good standing" will be being watched, closely, by a crowd of people, who will be only too happy to explain the situation to any steward. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC).
        • I was under the impression that all Arbcom members, both current and former, had both permissions automatically? And I don't mean "unquestioningly granted upon request"; I thought that both permissions were given to you as soon as you joined the committee. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
          • No, the permissions are granted upon request. Although most arbitrators do choose to ask for the tools and it is routine for ArbCom to make a cumulative request to the stewards at the beginning of each term, some other arbs, for whatever reason, choose not to ask. After all, they are not strictly necessary, especially when an editor does not have any previous experience with it. Take CU, for instance, an arbitrator who has never used the tool may rely on his more experienced colleagues (which is something we generally do anyway; we don't run 15 independent checks, when someone appeals) and, so, consider access to the tool superfluous. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the clarification. I, for one, wouldn't mind if we had some way of granting "the administrator flag for the duration of the time on the committee"; being elected to Arbcom is vastly more of a responsibility than ordinary adminship, so in my mind, it would be thoroughly unhelpful if we required a non-admin arbitrator to stay that way, or if we required an arbitrator to go through RFA just so that said arbitrator could function normally. Since former arbitrators get to keep their CU/O rights, I wouldn't mind if the admin flag were retained after said arbitrator left the committee. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
              • I entirely agree. The scrutiny an arbcom candidate is subjected to far exceed that of an admin candidate, in my opinion. But I don't think ArbCom can do that because it would require a policy change, which is outside our province... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of issues here:
  1. Is this a policy change? The Committee is charged with the responsibility to approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools, a blanket approval does not, in my view, fit with this.
  2. Consider, for example, we currently have a Wikipediocracy member standing. Even if he gets in there may be considerable concerns with him having CheckUser and/or Oversight. Remember the poll is predicated on existing policy.
  3. There is value in having to say to the committee "I want these bits". Arbitrators may in general prefer not to have them, but if it is automatically granted on request to 'Crats, tend to get them enabled for a particular problem, and keep them through inertia.
  4. Note also that if there is a committee process there is scope for community objection.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC).
There's no policy against a Wikipedia member using any other web forum, including Wikipediocracy. Lacking specific evidence of off-wiki conduct by an specific individual, such guilt-by-innuendo statements are not appropriate here. NE Ent 01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom. NE Ent 01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Aggre with that, and I would add that there is already community scrutiny and input in the form of the arbcom elections. The community has therefore already said that any sitting arb is entitled to these tools. The committee should not even be considering overiding the election results, so even though we are technically the gatekeepers of CU/OS any arb asking for it has to be granted itm making the whole motion we just did a pointless rubber stamp. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The community has said no such thing, the way forward here is to change the policy after the current election. Not to mess with Arbcom procedure to pervert the policy. The power would not be vested in the committee if it was intended to be a rubber stamp. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Question: Are the CU/OS rights granted under this motion permanent, for a fixed duration, or valid only while the person serves on the ArbCom? Abecedare (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Under the present system, the CU/OS rights are granted permanently (subject to any activity rules, misconduct, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Concern: Needs a mandatory waiting period before approval, to avoid you guys on your secret mailing list having a discussion about booting one of your members for, say, leaking the mailing list, and then them going and requesting CU to release CU information on people they don't like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How would a steward verify whether a vote for suspension is currently taking place or whether the member is already suspended? Snowolf How can I help? 21:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If the arb was already suspended there would certainly be an announcement on the noticeboard, and they would be removed from the list of committee members on the main arbcom page. Otherwise I should think a simple ping to our mailing list pointiong out the request would be more than enough. Frankly an arb being suspended is a vanishingly rare event and probably not worth much worry. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If stewards are supposed to privately contact the Arbitration Committee to verify that a member is not undergoing suspension proceedings, then we should stick to the current system where the Arbitration Committee sorts these things about before the stewards being poked. Otherwise, you should make a public announcement somewhere when proceeding starts. Snowolf How can I help? 01:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: In response to your third concern, I think the only way to know would be asking at m:SN, for the opinion of some non-enwiki stewards. I certainly have an opinion on the matter, but then I am also certainly not neutral in the matter. --Rschen7754 02:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that there have been votes to suspend Arbcom members, but not all of them have been public, how would stewards know that there was not a private suspension vote occurring? From my experience of stewards, I think they will be expecting confirmation from Arbcom that the user meets the requirements to be of good standing. Also, as NYB points out, a future Arbitration Committee (or even the community, as is contemplated by the Checkuser and Oversight global policies) may decide to move to a different method of determining who should have access to these tools. Arbcom might also want to consider, historically, the problems associated with people coming and going with advanced permissions, and even more seriously might want to consider how many cases they have worked on in the past year that genuinely required the use of checkuser or oversight tools. Risker (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If the problem is that you want to prevent an arb whose suspension is being discussed from getting access to the tools, then the quickest solution would be for a steward to just send an e-mail to the list prior to actioning the request. Right now, a motion is required, which, in turn, requires a majority of non-recused arbs to support it and, quite frankly, is a waste of time. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Making someone else confirm the intentions of the Arbitration Committee is absurd and inconsiderate of the value of the time of other volunteers in the movement. Stewards have better and more useful things to do than email Arbcom; if Arbcom can't get its act together sufficiently to manage advanced permissions for its members in a quick and efficient way, that's Arbcom's problem, not the problem of the stewards. It's not about a quick solution, it's about not dumping your responsibilities on someone else. Risker (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
        • What if the reply from Arbcom comes from the user that requested his permission? What if, as it happens, the Arbitration Committee takes a long time to reply, or even forgets to reply to such an email? In essence, the arbitration committee members who are voting in favour of this motion are requiring that somebody other than the requesting user validate the request. Why can't it be the case that an arbitrator different from the requesting one has to file the request on Meta or, as it is now, that an arbitrator speaking on behalf of the committee files the request? This motion's only effect would be a slight time-saving for the Arbitrators at the expense of unclarity and extra work on Meta... Snowolf How can I help? 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, this basically dumps extra work from the arbitrators to the stewards, at the expense of transparency. This is a bad idea. --Rschen7754 17:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
            • In addition to this, in the future it's probably best to encourage all arbitrators to accept CU/OS in the beginning, as it's when they accept it later when the extra work occurs (for both arbs and stewards). When we grant CU, we have to get their email address (and verify it), and add them to checkuser-l and the CU wiki and IRC channel, and when we grant OS, we have to make sure they are added to the OTRS queue (which arbitrators have frequently forgotten to request). It's easier to do it all at once, especially now that Risker (who serves as a CUwiki crat/mailing list admin) is no longer on the committee. (Removing permissions isn't as bad, they just get blocked on the CUwiki and dropped from the list). --Rschen7754 20:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is getting blown all out of proportion. This was simply intended to eliminate a seemingly needless layer of process, whereby someone who was already entitled to CU/OS by dint of having been elected by the community still had to be subject to a confirmation vote before the stewards would flip the switch. All this worry about suspension proceedings is much ado about nothing in my opinion. There is no provision here requiring the stewards to double check because it doesn't seem necessary. Someone asked how they would know, so I gave an answer, but the motion as worded does not require it at all. Stewards can just go ahead and do it, secure in the knowledge that it is arbcom's responsibility to inform them if they should not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Nothing requires the stewards to double-check anything that they do. It's only that they are the ones on the hook if it turns out that they screwed up, and they could be voted out in the next elections. --Rschen7754 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The crux here is the words seemingly needless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Actually, on reviewing the global checkuser policy and global oversight policy, it appears that Arbcom does not have the authority to grant unrestricted access to CU/OS to any group of editors (including members of its own committee) in a prospective way. Both policies state, with identical wording: "On wikis with an arbitration committee elected with 25–30 editors' approval, users may also be appointed by the arbitration committee (unless the local community prefers independent elections). After agreement, a member of the arbitration committee should place a request on Steward requests/Permissions." There is no provision for access other than by direct Arbcom appointment. I suggest the motion be withdrawn. Risker (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The global policy linked by Risker appears pretty clear; I don't understand why more care was not taken to ensure this was authorised in the first place, but moving forward, withdrawing the motion seems very sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Risker: That isn't quite right. Appointments that would be made once this motion in effect would not violate the clause you cite in any way I can see. It may help if you do a word-by-word analysis of the Meta sentence, as I don't see the clash. AGK [•] 06:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The way I read it, the appointment must be authorized by the *currently sitting* arbitration committee. Arbcom, as it currently exists, has just over five weeks left in its term. After that point, this current Arbcom no longer has authorization to appoint anyone to anything, but this motion is essentially appointing all future arbitrators. Come January 1 of each year, there will be a new Arbcom, and only that Arbcom can make appointments, and only for the duration of its term in office. Both must follow the required global policy; local policy cannot override global policy, so the appointment must be made by the currently sitting Arbcom, and the minimal procedure must be followed, with evidence that the appointment *has* indeed been made (thus the current standard of a link to an announcement on WP:ACN). You may not be aware that historically there were a few problems with individual arbitrators (and in at least two cases, former arbitrators) posting "appointments" that were not, in fact, approved by the committee as a whole or were otherwise deficient, which created additional workload for stewards; thus, they quite reasonably insisted that Arbcom follow the global policy to the letter. There is never an "emergency" that requires immediate access to the tools for an individual arbitrator who otherwise doesn't already hold them; it should be no problem to obtain the requisite 50% +1 support from colleagues in, say, 48-72 hours via the mailing list. Alternately, if there is a need for immediate access to certain information, all arbitrators are authorized to receive case-specific non-public information (including, for example, oversighted edits or checkuser results), and that information can be shared by another arbitrator or suitably qualified functionary. Risker (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement



This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Asilah1981

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 19:56, 24 November 2014 Insert new text,
  2. 10:35, 25 November 2014 Insert same text again,
  3. 20:46, 25 November 2014 Insert same text 3rd time,
  4. 21:18, 24 November 2014 change wording from "engaged in clashes in Aden that killed at least 82 people, both Arab and Jew" to "attacked the Jewish community in Aden that killed at least 82 jews "
  5. 10:09, 25 November 2014 repeat above
  6. 10:51, 25 November 2014 repeat above a 3rd time
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Newly registered editor who shows no interest in following the 1RR on some of the most contentious articles on the Israel/Palestine area. Have been given opportunity to self-revert, but refuse to do so. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cptnono: good point, but WP doesn´t really leave any alternatives, does it? (Recall "no fishing rules" of SPI). If all I/P articles were semi-protected, we could avoid this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Asilah1981

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Asilah1981 (1)

Hi guys. Contrary to the users who have reported me, I am not an activist user on the Israel/Palestine debate (I have and never will edit articles related to Palestine and Israel - unless they directly make mention to this topic). My focus is ensuring that sentences in the article say exactly what the quoted source say. Obviously if all available sources says that 82 jews were killed in one of the worse anti-jewish massacres in the Middle East, I find it insane and overtly POV that certain activist users wish to change the sentence to "both arabs and jews were killed in clashes in Aden" (PLEASE check sources on this before forming an opinion). I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with users manipulating and overtly lying about information provided in sources, but I hope there is a mechanism to control them beyond the 1 revert rule. My edits and contributions over the past years have largely been in non-controversial issues (mainly arabic dialectology and other languages I know) so Im not very acquainted with activist users. I happen to have stumbled upon this massive campaign to delegitimize ethnic cleansing involving user Oncenawhile and others, which I see the worst offender is already being dealt with above. I see those who have reported me evidently belong to this group of people who are trying to conceal historical fact provided in reputable sources using illogical arguments: "out of scope" etc... Here are a couple of examples btw: Denying religious persecution and massacre in Yemen: [23] Illogically removing sourced sentence on jews escaping to Europe and Americas because it goes contrary to POV being pushed (that they were all leaving voluntarily out of love for Israel and were never persecuted/persecution is a "zionist lie"). [24] I am assuming that the reaction would have been much swifter if we were dealing with the European holocaust and any campaign to deligitimize or deny it (a criminal offence in Germany and France, I believe) on the basis of Middle East conflict, so I hope there is no double standard and that North African and Middle Eastern Jews and their plight is treated with the same care by wikipedia community. Anyways, thank you for allowing me a chance to provide my position. Regards.

(talk) 09:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Asilah1981 (2)

Not sure if Im allowed to comment again, but a conversation seems to be going on here, so I assume that I am. I think we are missing the point. Those editors who have reporting me and supporting this case notably Zero000, seem to be using as an argument that I have misquoted Reuben Ahroni's book by stating the number of jews killed during the Pogrom (82, I think). Through his edits, Zero000 is using this source to claim there was no massacre of jews as such, just riots which killed arabs and jews. This is all the more surreal considering Reuben Ahroni's baby brother was murdered in this pogrom and no reputable source (let alone Reuben himself) deny that the violence was directed at jews, that at least 82 jews died and the vast majority of those killed were jews. Here is a source on this (see page 1) [25]. It is as insane as quoting Ana Frank to deny the holocaust, and in my frank opinion this type of concealed POV pushing using fake sources should be the focus of this discussion, not whether I have or have not got the pages wrong during citation. The entire book is written on the premise of my sourced statement, it mentions it on various pages, including the first one, and not one page of it denies it. Thanks again. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have just gone through my contentious edits and note I made one mistake, in one of my edits I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers. Zero000 was adamant on ensuring information which he knew was true to be excluded from the article and repeatedly reverted to the denialist version. In any case, Parfitt refers to the pogrom on numerous pages in the book and uses this term (at least part ot it is available in Google Books so this can be verified). Denying racially or religiously motivated massacres and ethnic cleansing on wikipedia is an ugly hobby, Zero0000.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Where did I erase highly precise page numbers for specific claims? I do not recall doing that at any point, and I don't see it in the evidence brought against me. I have only rewritten unsourced fantasy statements. No doubt I have broken the 1RR, I don't deny that, but I had never come across it before. Btw, the second half of your statement, regarding an indian muslim which was "probably" killed by a jewish sniper is frankly sick. What the hell? What do you want, all the bodies to have their noses measured to call it a pogrom? Some people, really... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Asilah1981 (3)

@Oncenawhile: As you know, I have a strong issue with the line you are pursuing while editing many articles related to the Jewish exodus. I didn't like the disclaimers added in the introductory section nor the way you give prime importance to arguments regarding the "utiliziation as pro-Israel propaganda" and "role of Zionist agents", One Million Plan and "False flag operations". I find your line of editing morally reprehensible. I also never understood why you have outlawed the term refugee for people who under all definitions were refugees. You refused to engage in discussion with me on Talk pages, even though I concede I was a bit aggressive in the way I engaged you. While the term "refugee" is used close to 50 times on the article on the Palestinian Nakba which you regularly edit, you carry out edits like this [26] on basis of neutral voice!

In any case, I am not the kind of editor who will delete reputable sources because I find them objectionable. Even arguments provided by Hamas on "how jews brought the expulsion on themselves" expressed as a legitimate argument on the relevant section of Palestinian Nakba article, I did not delete (although I did ask about it - with evidently no response)[27]. So someone please at least tell me. Where am I deleting sources?? So far I have only, at least consciously, added sources!Asilah1981 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ok fine, sounds good. I do have strong feelings about this issue, no doubt, and I did get upset over the way this whole episode of history has been politicized. But I understood how things work in these types of articles deemed "controversial" (they shouldn't be!). Note, I normally edit articles from time to time in areas where sources are scarce or non-existent. Will also try to get on better with users I disagree with, and assume good faith, particularly with user Oncenawhile . I will refrain from being too quick to decide on someone having an antisemitic agenda. I also noted some of Oncenawhile's edits were not destructive (in article on Oujda massacre, I see positive contributions for example) I can't say the same for all other users I have interacted with recently. I will respect 1RR as well. I can't believe this whole issue has arisen from one individual edit which Palestine-obsessed Huldra reverted for no apparent reason beyond that it ran contrary to her political inclinations. In this case I did NOT remove sources but just added one. Is there no rule in wiki against removing relevant, neutral properly sourced sentences? [28] I also wonder how many of these users who claim to be so respectful and knowledgeable of wikipedia rules are calling their activist buddies to help them in their private edit wars. I guess this is why wikipedia is dying. Its controlled by people who don't have a personal life. Anyways, thanks again. This has at least been enjoyable and an escape from my problems in real life! Asilah1981 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Here we see Asilah1981 removing sourced information with a false claim about what the source contains, and here we see Asilah1981 adding entirely fake page numbers for it. (The pages given do not mention the events they are cited for.) Editors who lie about sources are more dangerous to the encyclopedia than common vandals. Zerotalk 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that Asilah1981's reply ignored the charges of repeated 1RR violation, and also ignored my specific charges of lying about sources. I'm happy to provide a copy of the source to any admin who wants to check—just send me email. Zerotalk 10:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: that link supports my charges. Zerotalk 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The page numbers she added were 85–124. They contain two chapters on Law, Customs and Economy, and the first page of a chapter on 1930–1939. Nothing about the violent events of 1947–1949. Zerotalk 13:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Asilah1981: You are now claiming "I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers". Did you think nobody would look at Ahroni's book to see if the page numbers 85–124 make any sense there? Of course they don't; no sense at all. You need to give a better reason for adding those page numbers because the only explanation on the table so far is that you just made them up. Zerotalk 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

@Zero0000: Here is the claim. The page number is off (maybe it's a different edition of the book), but there is a big difference between mistake in citing and lying. WP:AGF. WarKosign 11:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

WasrKoSign. That sows confusion, and you have totally missed Zero's point. Zero's diffs show it is the same edition (Brill 1996). The first diff shows Asilah1981 replacing Zero's edit which cites Parfitt twice for 2 distinct facts, deaths (p.167) and accusations re two Muslim girls' death, with arrests (pp.187-91), with a rewriting of the text, and the erasure of those page numbers. The second diff by Asilah1981 shows her supplying pages from Parfitt, but the page range is indefinite, unspecific (pp.182-124). Thirdly, Asilah1981's two diffs cite exactly the same edition of Parfitt BRILL 1996. (One might add that the actual numbers of Jews killed in Aden were 76, not 80/82. The difference in the figure is due to the fact that 82 bodies were found, 6 were unidentified ethnically, but presumed to probably be Jews, as Parfitt says on the page Zero cited (p.167 n.17.(Idem Bat-Zion Eraqi Klorman, Traditional Society in Transition: The Yemeni Jewish Experience, BRILL 2014 p.106)

In sum Asilah1981 erased highly precise page numbers for each claim, then rewrote the text without page citation, then came back with a vague page ref that fudges. There can be no justification for editing like that: it just wastes time for people who actually read books, and cite them exactly. One cannot edit these pages with a monocular ethnic eye, eliding as Asilah1981 did the specific indication that 33 Arabs died in the clashes (these events are complex: we ignore the 4 Indian Muslims and a Somali killed, that a Jewish sniper probably shot dead an Indian Moslem doctor and a 'Levy' soldier on 4 December, and the crucial fact that many Jews killed were not simply killed by local Aden 'Arabs', but by local levied troops under British command, who abused their functions by acting on their own). People who write off the top of their heads, and edit to shape an ideological reading of history, who erase precise data and replace it with unverified, vague source assertions are a bane that rots the work of the few people who take this encyclopedia's ambitions seriously.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'Where did I erase highly precise page numbers for specific claims?.'here. This has got nothing to do with activists with a Jewish pogrom suppression remit (!!!!) or whatever. This is about scholarly precision and scruple. Please don't be disingenuous, or bury a serious list of damning diffs under a WP:TLDR screed. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

[29] or SPI. Waste of everyone's time here.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Oncenawhile

Whilst Asilah1981's heart may be in the right place, (s)he needs to learn to WP:AGF, as her various talk page and edit comments show. Another example of this is at this talk page.

Asilah1981's passion tells me they could be a good contributor, but they need to begin to trust others here, learn to collaborate, and learn to read existing sources properly. So far Asilah's edits have been almost exclusively destructive, because they are not using sources properly. Apart from the point Zero brings above, it is the deletion of existing well sourced scholarly text which I find most disturbing - for example [30]. I suspect Asilah1981 has simply not read the sources they are deleting, for which there really is no excuse.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Asilah1981

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[31]]. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, six months passed on 10 August 2012. I appealed on 9 October 2012. The appeal was not upheld, though was relaxed by the removal of the British baronets topic ban. Since then, I have not made any subsequent appeal until now, over two years since the previous appeal and some two years and ten months since the ban was imposed.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by Mooretwin

I have abided by the topic ban for nearly three years now, and I would like it to be lifted. That is a long time during which to reflect and I think the period demonstrates my patience and acceptance of the sanction. I have not been involved in any disputes, edit wars, incivility or any other misdemeanours during that time. While in the period up to about five years ago I was involved in a number of such disputes, I had not been involved in any in the two years prior to the incident that led to this ban. That incident was in the "heat of the moment" and, I argued at the time and still do, was the result of extreme provocation. I should like to think, given the conduct in the two years previous and the nearly three years since, that it would be accepted that the incident does not represent a fair reflection of my contributions to Wikipedia, and thus that an indefinite ban is no longer a reasonable sanction.

At the time of my first appeal, editors sought evidence of collaborative editing. However, I made the point that my inability to edit articles in the only real area of my expertise (Northern Ireland) meant that I was unable to edit collaboratively. This remains the case, although recently, for example, I have engaged constructively at WP:CRICKET in relation to achieving consensus for a new notability criterion.

Statement by T. Canens

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin

AFAIK, you've had no problems in other areas during the 2+ years, thus a demonstration of your new approach. IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. Afterall, it was placed as a preventative measure & since there's nothing to prevent anymore.....? :) GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Mooretwin, can you give an example of a TROUBLES-related article you would work on if this ban was lifted? What kind of material would you add? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid, as a result of the ban, I haven't been reading or following any very closely, so I'm not up to speed on what needs work. There is currently no particular article that I intend to work on immediately. I don't have a lot of time, to be honest, but I would still like the freedom to be able to participate as and when I think I can offer something useful. At one time, I was in the process of creating articles on historical members of the Northern Ireland Parliament missing from the encyclopaedia, adding categories for government ministers and so on, but that all had to stop. Eventually I'd like to complete that. A few random examples of articles I've created are: Basil Kelly, Colum Eastwood, David Graham Shillington, Edmund Warnock. I also won't pretend that I wouldn't wish to be able to add value to some of the more "controversial" articles on occasion without resorting to edit wars or confrontation: I've certainly learned my lesson on that, and would give an undertaking to tread carefully and respectfully. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)